Sustainable Transport Evaluation · 2017-10-16 · 4 Sustainable Transport Evaluation – SUT...

Division 44 Water Energy Transport

Sustainable Transport EvaluationDeveloping Practical Tools for Evaluation in the Context of the CSD Process

Sustainable Urban Transport Technical Document 7

b

About the authorsDaniel Bongardt is holding a position as Transport Policy Advisor at German Interna-tional Cooperation in Eschborn Germany His main area of work includes transport and climate change policyDominik Schmid is Research Assistant at the Department of Economic Geography University of Giessen Germany with a focus on development studies and sustainable transportationCornie Huizenga is currently working as joint convener of the Partnership on Sustain-able Low Carbon Transport and as a consult-ant for both the Asian Development Bank and the Inter-American Development BankTodd Litman is founder and executive direc-tor of the Victoria Transport Policy Institute an independent research organisation dedi-cated to developing innovative solutions to transport problems

i

IMPRINT

Authors Daniel Bongardt Dominik Schmid Cornie Huizenga Todd Litman

Editor Deutsche Gesellschaft fuumlrInternationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbHP O Box 518065726 Eschborn Germanyhttpwwwgizdehttpwwwsutporg

Division 44 Water Energy TransportSector Project Transport Policy Advisory Services

On behalf ofFederal Ministry for the Environment Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU)11055 Berlin Germanyhttpwwwbmude

Federal Environment Agency (UBA) P O Box 140606813 Dessau-Roszliglau Germanyhttpwwwumweltbundesamtde

Manager Manfred Breithaupt

Editing Dominik Schmid

Cover photo GIZ Klaus Neumann

Layout Klaus Neumann SDS GC

Eschborn March 2011

CopyrightThis publication may be reproduced in whole or in part in any form for educational or non-profit purposes without special permission from the copyright holder whenever provided acknowledgement of the source is made The GIZ would appreciate receiving a copy of any publication that uses this GIZ publication as a source No use of this publication may be made for resale or for any other commercial purpose whatsoever

Disclaimer

Findings interpretations and conclusions expressed in this document are based on information gathered by GIZ and its consult-ants partners and contributors from reliable sources GIZ does not however guarantee the accuracy or completeness of information in this document and cannot be held respon-sible for any errors omissions or losses which emerge from its use

ii

Contents

Abstract 1

1 Introduction 2

2 Sustainability in the transport sector 3

3 The need for sustainability indicators 4

4 Sustainability indicators and evaluation schemes 741 What are suitable indicators of sustainability 742 Frameworks for indicators 9

5 A review of existing concepts in the transport sector 11

6 Suggestions for further discussion ndash Towards evaluation of sustainable transport 13

References 16

Annex I Attributes of a good performance measure 18

Annex II Introduction to approaches on measuring sustainability 19

1

Developing Practical Tools for Evaluation in the Context of the CSD Process

Abstract

Sustainable development balances environmental social and economic objectives Sustainable transport planning refers to transport policy analysis and planning practices that support sus-tainable development This is important because transport policy and planning decisions can have diverse long-term impacts A critical component of sustainable transport planning is the development of a comprehensive evaluation program that evaluates transport system perfor-mance based on an appropriate set of environmental social and economic indicators This study reviewed existing indicator sets to determine which are most appropriate for sustainable trans-port planning and policy purposes on an international level The analysis concluded that there is currently no sustainable transport evaluation process that is suitable and mature enough for pro-cesses such as the UN Commission for Sustainable Development (CSD) Although some juris-dictions are starting to establish sustainable transport performance evaluation programs there are currently no widely-accepted standards and many countries do not yet collect the basic data needed particularly in developing regionsBuilding on a well established definition of sustainable transportation this document outlines options for relevant indicators and evaluation schemes Based on this analysis we recommend the following actions to develop international guidelines and standards for sustainable transport indicators and evaluation tools Establish a working group tasked with developing a recommended set of sustainable transport evaluation methods performance indicators and data standards during CSD 1819 with a view on endorsement at the Rio Plus 20 Conference in 2012 Identify and evaluate existing transport-related data suitable for sustainable transport plan-ning available from international organisations (eg UNFCCC IEA IRF UNDP ITF World Bank and others) Identify problems with these data sets including the types of data collected the geographic areas where they are collected and the quality and availability of the resulting data Develop an action plan to quickly begin addressing these problems Following the selection of an evaluation scheme CSD should task a suitable international body with implementing or coordinating the scheme This should be an independent profes-sional organisation or development agency that has broad stakeholder support and reliable financing

This program will provide many significant benefits By establishing international guidelines and standards for transport-related data indicators and evaluation practices it will avoid dupli-cations and help create data sets suitable for tracking and comparing performance towards chosen sustainability goals This will help individual jurisdictions identify problems and evalu-ate potential solutions It will help researchers around the world better understand the ultimate impacts of transport policy and planning decisions Furthermore the scheme could be used for aligning transport-related projects of international donors according to such goals

2

Sustainable Transport Evaluation ndash SUT Technical Document 7

1 Introduction

Established in the aftermath of the 1992 Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro the UN Commission for Sustainable Development (CSD) is coordinating and implementing the Agenda 21 which calls for reorienting policy towards sustainability Follow-ing the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in Johannesburg in the year 2002 the work of the CSD is structured in thematic two-year cycles during which three to six specific topics are treated Each cycle is divided in one year for the evaluation of progress and one year for the formulation of policy recommendations The transport sector is one of the focus topics of the CSD process during 20102011 (CSD 1819)The evaluation year 2010 (CSD 18) has shown that there is no accepted single definition of sustainable transport and especially its measurement in terms of indicators Hence the paper aims at giving an overview on available approaches and providing ideas how the evaluation of sustainable transport could be organised at international level Rather than outlining indicators the paper focuses on ways how to embed indicators into decision-making Thereby the paper is a contribution to the Partnership for Sustainable Low Carbon Transport (SLoCaT) The partner-ship of more than 50 organisations worldwide is actively following the CSD Process on Trans-port in 201011 (for details see httpwwwslocatnet and CSD18 background papers lsquoPolicy options for Transportrsquo and lsquoThe Improvement of Developing Country Transport Data Collec-tion Analysis and Disseminationrsquo at httpwwwunorgesadsdresourcesres_docucsd_19shtml)The paper is financed by the German Federal Ministry for Environment and Nuclear Safety (BMU) The Ministry is co-ordinating the sub group on transport of the Working Party on International Environment Issues (WPIEI) within the European Union which is the coordinat-ing body for CSD conferences In this context the Ministry has asked GIZ to conduct a review of existing concepts and provide an input for further discussionThis document is structured along the following key questionsWhat is sustainable transportationChapter 2 introduces a multidimensional definition based on earlier widely recognised workWhy do we need indicators to measure sustainabilityChapter 3 gives a quick introduction to some of the most important challenges in the trans-port sector It outlines the relevance of indicators to identify unsustainable trends in transpor-tation and the possible benefits of an evaluation schemeWhat are suitable indicators and evaluation methodsChapter 4 focuses on basic requirements for suitable indicators and the different methodolog-ical options for moving beyond a set of descriptive data towards a proper evaluation schemeWhat are strengths and weaknesses of existing concepts for measuring sustainability in the trans-port sectorChapter 5 provides a review of selected existing concepts dealing with the measurement of sustainability in the transport sector Both basic indicator sets as well as performance meas-urement schemes are included The concepts are then analysed with regard to issues such as scope applicability and the dimensions of sustainability covered How to implement an international evaluation schemeChapter 6 concludes and deals with possible next steps and the role of international stakeholders for establishing implementing and financing a global evaluation scheme for sustainable transport It also outlines the possible role of such a scheme to align projects of international development co-operation with national development goals for sustainable transportation

3

2 Sustainability in the transport sector

A necessary first step before embarking on further analysis is to define what sustainable devel-opment in the transport sector actually means A wide range of different concepts has been proposed While the seminal work on sustainable development of the WCED (1987 43) empha-sized the inter-generational dimension (ldquo[] meet[ing] the needs of the present without compro-mising the ability of future generations to meet their own needsrdquo) most concepts for sustainable transport currently focus on intra-generational aspects of equity and welfare The long-term perspective is nevertheless present in many approaches eg when dealing with the contribution of the transport sector to climate change Essentially measuring sustainable transport is about measuring enhancements in the sustainability of transportConsidering the various negative effects of transportation a definition of sustainable transport with special reference to developing countries should include social environmental and eco-nomic dimensions In addition as a fourth dimension reflecting the experiences in implement-ing the Agenda 21 on a local level (UBA 2005) the process towards a sustainable transport system should be participative and involve not only key stakeholders but also the general publicBased on a concept developed by the Toronto-based Centre for Sustainable Transportation which has been adopted by the European Conference of Transport Ministers (ECMT) and numerous other relevant international organisations (CST 2005) we define sustainable trans-port as follows (Box 1)

box 1Definition of sustainable transportA more sustainable transportation system is one that

Allows the basic access and development needs of people to be met safely and promotes equity within and between successive generations (Social dimension) Is affordable within the limits imposed by internalisation of external costs operates fairly and efficiently and fosters a balanced regional develop-ment (Economic dimension) Limits emissions of air pollution and GHGs as well as waste and mini-mises the impact on the use of land and the generation of noise (Environmental dimension) Is designed in a participatory process which involves relevant stakeholders in all parts of the society (Degree of participation)

Source Adapted from CST 2005

In conclusion low-carbon sustainable transport reduces short and long term negative impacts on the local and global environments has economically viable infrastructure and operation and provides safe and secure access for both persons and goodsSource Dalkmann and Huizenga 2010

4

box 2Key challenges in the transport sector

Air pollutionTransport activities generate a wide range of emissions that influence air quality on a local level They have various det-rimental effects on human health and the environment This includes among others Nitrogen Oxides volatile organic compounds (VOC) Particulate Matter (PM) and Lead

Climate changeTransportation plays a significant role in global GHG emis-sions with most of its share originating from burning of fossil fuels The largest contributor by far is freight and passenger road transport Overall transportation is responsible for 13 of global GHG emissions and 23 of energy-related CO2 emissions Industrialised countries are currently the main contributors for overall GHG emissions but 80 of projected increase until 2030 is related to road transport in developing countries mainly in emerging economies such as China

CongestionUnsustainable transport systems trigger significant negative effects for national economies and the society Congestion causes a significant amount of time lost which could have been used for other purpose and increases operating costs eg for vehicle owners and freight operators

Energy intensity and natural resource consumptionCurrent projections for global freight and passenger trans-port growth under a business as usual scenario show that much of the increase in transport activities will be in the most energy intensive modes like aviation private motorised transport and road freight This runs counter to the principles of sustainable production and consumption which amongst others call for a significant increase in energy efficiency to limit the need for natural resources

3 The need for sustainability indicators

Sustainability in transport is a widely acknowledged necessity due to negative environmental social and economic impacts of movements of passengers and goods Key challenges are out-lined in Box 2 Tackling one of the problems often yields significant co-benefits as many of them tend to reinforce each other In order to identify the impact of transportation on the vari-ous issues and provide a basis for policymaking and awareness raising indicators are needed As defined in the European COST 356 project (COST 356 2010 28) ldquoan indicator is a variable based on measurements representing as accurately as possible and necessary a phenomenon of inter-estrdquo ie sustainable transport One may thereby further distinguish between indicators measur-ing progress in establishing a more sustainable process (outcome) and indicators that measure results (outputs) of actions by governments to contribute to that

Egrave

5

Energy securityCurrent transportation relies heavily on fossil fuels Volatile world market prices the generally rising costs of crude oil and the limited number of supplier countries pose signifi-cant threats for energy security especially in the developing world

Equity of accessBoth in urban and rural areas people depend on afford-able transportation for access to employment and markets schools and health care A transport system increasingly centred on motorised individual transport reduces such access for low income groups This seriously reduces equity and impairs efforts for poverty reduction in develop-ing countries

Habitat fragmentation and land consumptionTransport infrastructure is a major cause for the partition of ecosystems andor habitats of plant and animal popula-tions into smaller more isolated units Disturbance and killing of animals is a common concern but in the long run even essential ecosystem processes can be influenced as popula-tions of individual species become separated In addition the land consumption of transport infrastructure is an increasing problem especially in urban areas The huge area taken up by roads and rails already reduces valuable urban space other-wise available for living recreation and businesses

NoiseTraffic noise has severe impacts on health and quality of life not only in cities but anywhere near major transport infra-structure Exact figures on the extent to which the population is affected by traffic noise are currently very limited even in Europe

Road safetyRoad traffic accidents are likely to become the 3rd important cause of deaths and injuries by 2030 Victims include a large number of pedestrians and cyclists especially in developing cities On the other side many developed countries have suc-ceeded in significantly reducing the number of people injured and killed in road traffic In addition accidents incur a dominant share of overall external costs of transportation on the society such as the costs related to medical care for the victimsSource Extended overview based on GTZ 2009 and Van Bohemen 1998

Although indicator schemes exist for various cities countries and regions (see also Section 5) international processes like CSD cannot refer back to a comparable evaluation scheme on a global level In addition most of the developing world lacks the necessary data for indicators andor has not yet defined sustainability goals in transportThe evaluation of the sustainability of a national transport system provides benefits for coun-tries participating in a scheme The following six categories summarise advantages of evaluation schemes on a national level They are ordered from very general to rather specific and more con-flicting benefits

6

1 Identification of challenges As outlined in Box 2 transportation has numerous poten-tial impacts on sustainability Specific impacts are of varying importance in individual countries Whereas the contribution of the transport sector to GHG emissions and environmental destruction is a key challenge in many developed countries and emerging economies less developed countries may worry more about the accessibility of transporta-tion for the poor or the high number of road traffic fatalities A consistent and compara-ble evaluation of different indicators enables both official stakeholders and the public to identify the major challenges towards achieving sustainability in the transport sector

2 Transparency and information A common definition of sustainable transport facili-tates benchmarking but also multilateral negotiations eg on climate environment or energy issues Measurement Reporting and Verification (MRV) has gained increasing importance eg in financing schemes such as the Global Environmental Facility (GEF) and funds of multilateral development banks A reliable panel database of relevant indica-tors enables recipient countries to prove progress towards defined targets to donor parties On a more local level an internationally driven effort to provide necessary data will help those who are dealing with the more immediate (negative) effects of transportation For example transport planners and engineers require good information on transport facili-ties and activities and public health officials rely on sound data on traffic casualties or pollution exposure

3 Knowledge transfer Evaluation schemes identify parties with high performance (eg low number of road fatalities low carbon intensity hellip) Countries can therefore learn from others especially from countries with a similar stage of development what are good practices and what can be done to improve sustainability

4 Policy target setting Countries that choose to establish a sustainable development strat-egy for transportation may use a set of indicators for sustainable transport and define objectives which they can strive to reach They can refer such targets in national transport and development policies Once targets are set the indicators can serve monitoring pro-cess towards sustainability Countries can control whether political measures contribute to progress towards sustainability goals If necessary they can readjust their concepts

5 Gaining competitive advantages Countries (especially emerging economies) can pre-sent themselves in comparison to others to prove their attractiveness as a location for economic activities and as a safe and convenient place to live This issue is even more important for evaluation schemes on an urban level as cities worldwide are already facing increasing competition eg as location for business headquarters exhibitions and numer-ous other activities Singapore is a good example for such an active marketing of the well-performing transport system

6 Linking international standards with local action Broad international guidelines for evaluating sustainability in the transport sector may inspire local initiative Setting derived andor additional individual indicators at the local level can help to improve local governance and networking by initiating dialogue between multiple stakeholders

With regard to the CSD process where countries with rather diverse conditions are involved a ranking along indicators would probably only motivate forerunners to take part and is less attractive to those who are less developed Hence the aim of any evaluation scheme under the CSD would not be to explicitly compare performance (see point 5) but

a to see whether the past developments and trends on global scale are positive and directed towards a sustainable development and

b to learn from others in order to strive for policies and measures that are able to trigger a more sustainable development

c to discuss more specific policy targets under the CSD that may inspire governments and negotiators for using the CSD as a platform for discussing the future of transport systems

7

4 Sustainability indicators and evaluation schemes

A set of indicators is able to describe a current situation If data are collected repeatedly it can even illustrate trends However they are not able to determine the sustainability of a transport system As Gudmundsson (2003 209) points out ldquoWith no benchmark how would we know if systems are sustainable or notrdquo Such benchmarks are related to the framework the sustainabil-ity indicators are used in eg policy targets labels or audits (see Section 42)An example would be the average particulate matter (PM) concentration in cities above 500000 inhabitants However this value alone does not provide much information on whether the level of local air pollution can be considered a problem or not Then the PM concentration needs to be compared against a benchmark eg ndash in this case a global policy target ndash the recommended maximum value according to WHO guidelines This reveals whether the current situation is unsustainable with regard to the impact on human healthWhile benchmarks are highly desirable they may not be available or even definable for every aspect Still indicators can be important for comparison reasons

41 What are suitable indicators of sustainability

Indicators must be accurate but easy to measure acceptable but not influenced by interests measurable timely and understandable Annex I lists typical characteristics a good performance measure (or indicator) should possess Some of them are based on technical or scientific condi-tions others are related to the intended use as a tool eg for policy-making and information In practice most indicators lack at least a few of the requirements This also shows the challenge to define appropriate indicators for describing complex processes like sustainable development in the transport sectorWith regard to a possible global scheme to assess sustainability in transport it is worth pointing out few key issues

1 Indicators should cover all dimensions of sustainability (social environmental economic and governance) At the same time they must be limited in number in order to keep neces-sary international efforts on large-scale surveys and measurement on a realistic level This poses serious challenges regarding the credibility of any set of indicators which must be

ldquoscientifically valid accurate and preciserdquo (Gudmundsson 2010) Furthermore it is desirable to achieve a certain compatibility with other global indicator schemes (WHO CSD main indicator set) and to complement such sets with additional transport-specific indicators

2 In order to avoid problems with acceptance of indicators they must be selected in a participatory process involving experts and policymakers from participating countries Especially in the context of CSD no party can be forced to provide necessary data The willingness to take part in the effort to measure sustainability in the transport sector is likely to decrease significantly without a thorough consultation process

3 It is important that indicators correspond to underlying sustainability goals derived from the chosen definition of sustainability in transportation Otherwise they do not contrib-ute to assess progress towards sustainability and to serve policy purposes

4 Although quantitative indicators are easier to compare across a large sample of coun-tries there is a need for additional qualitative information and interpretation This refers especially to the institutional environment Sustainability is a forward-looking concept and todayrsquos policy determines the future shape of the transport system The existence of governmental institutions dealing with sustainability topics and the incorporation of the latter eg into transport planning is therefore an important indicator for sustainability itself which can probably be captured only through qualitative research and stakeholder interviews

8

Table 1 An initial suggestion Ten key indicators for more sustainable transportNote This list of indicators is an example to start a discussion and NOT a comprehensive suggestion

DimensionIndicator Underlying sustainability goal Indicator typeCurrent

availability of data

Environment

Land consumption by transport infra-structure (as of total surface)

Avoid sprawl and destruction of the environment by transport infrastructure

Effect impact Low

Transport GHG emissions per capita Reduce transport contribution to climate change Effect impact Medium

Percentage of population affected by local air pollutants (eg PM10 concentration Non-Methane Hydrocarbons [NMHC] emissions hellip)

Reduce detrimental effects on human health and the environment

Effect impact Medium

EquitySocial

Road fatalitiesReduce the number of people killed or injured in road traffic accidents

Effect impact High

Modal share of PTNMTFoster transport modes that are both accessible for a large part of the population and environmen-tally sound

Outcome Medium

Share of transport cost from total household expenditure

Provide affordable transportation for all members of the society

Outcome Medium

Economy

Minimum taxation on fuelConsider the external costs caused by transporta-tion based on fossil fuels (especially road traffic)

Performance High

Transport investments by modePrefer transport modes that are accessible and environmentally sound

Performance High

PKMTKM per unit GDPDecouple economic growth from transport demand

Governance

Participatory transport planningInvolve the public in the decision process for transport policies and projects

Performance Low

Source Own compilation many ideas are based on SLoCatLitman 2010

Efforts to derive a suitable set of indicators for sustainable transportation have been numerous during the past years (for details see Section 5) Table 1 shows what a set of suitable indicators in the CSD context could look like It is certainly beyond the scope of this document to pre-sent a definitive choice Rather our aim is to emphasise some issues that need attention when choosing suitable indicators as already outlined above In addition to the different dimensions of sustainability a distinction between different levels of indicators is used to categorise them Performance indicators are those which measure the degree to which actors like governments contribute to a more sustainable transport systems through relevant policies An example is the introduction of an adequate minimum taxation for fossil fuels which is expected to trigger desirable behavioural changes (reducing number and length of trips switching to alternative modes etc) Outcome indicators measure the more immediate result of better policies which in turn lead to effects and impact regarding air quality road safety climate change etc The final category effect or impact indicators measure the long term results of better policies

9

An important issue is the availability of data Accessibility to valid data is a key requirement to set up indicators and the data in itself is a valid objective for governance towards a sustainable development Only if objective and unbiased information is available informed decisions can be taken Good data on transport helps transport planners to better do their job and more accu-rately describe what is needed Only in a second step the data can be used for evaluating sus-tainability However international processes like the CSD can help to put the data issue on the national agenda and also consider free access and use of data for all organisations and groups

42 Frameworks for indicators

To date few true benchmarks or target values for sustainability have been developed An example is the maximum value of 2 tons for average CO2 emissions per person in 2050 as rec-ommended by the IPCC in 2007 Staying below this value is assumed to avoid serious conse-quences of climate change for future generations something lying at the very core of the classic sustainability concept Another example referring to atmospheric pollutants (SO2 NOX VOC and NH3) is the NEC Directive of the European Union It aims at ldquomoving towards the long-term objectives of not exceeding critical levels and loads and of effective protection of all people against recognised health risks from air pollution by establishing national emission ceilings taking the years 2010 and 2020 as benchmarksrdquo (EU 2010 see httprodeioneteuropaeuinstruments522) National ceilings are differentiated and member states are required to draft corresponding action programmes and to report regularly on progress The target values and the reduction scheme used by the EU may be suitable also for a global applicationSuch more or less well defined targets based on sound scientific knowledge are difficult to achieve for other dimensions and indicators Which modal share can be considered sustainable and does it make sense to set a common target for such diverse countries like Singapore and Canada But even in such cases indicators may still be able ldquoto send signals about (un)sustain-ability rather than to provide final evidencerdquo (Gudmundsson 2003 209) A good example is the goal of EU member states to reduce the number of road fatalities by 50 until 2010 (based on the 2001 number of fatalities) Even though it is not possible to define a lsquosustainablersquo level of road deaths it is nevertheless feasible to set an ambitious target value leading towards a relatively more sustainable outcome As a conclusion any CSD-based set of transport related indicators needs to be embedded in an official decision on targets or development ldquodirectionsrdquo for the vari-ous indicatorsIn addition to such policy targets there are various ways (frameworks) indicators are used to assess sustainability Even if these are not directly applicable on global level the concepts out-lined in Box 3 give a good overview how countries could benefit from a definition of indicators on global level to apply schemes within the countries eg for cities This might be especially interesting for (a) urban transport systems and comparisons of cities and (b) mobility manage-ment of companies or other (public) organisationsThe above list of possible frameworks for indicators is not meant to be exhaustive In practice differences between the concepts are often less clear The European Energy Award for example issues a label while at the same time aiming at providing a benchmark for energy efficiency and fostering the exchange of experiences among European cities Which concept is suitable for an international evaluation of sustainability in transport will largely depend on the goal pursued by the exercise and on issues such as the data used and the audience addressed

10

box 3Frameworks for sustainability indicators

Ranking A basic but nevertheless efficient method to illustrate the range of values for any quantitative indicator An example is the Human Development Index (HDI) country ranking which has gained high popularity even in the general media Rankings are also used by some concepts for sustainable transport (see Chapter 6) Without a reference value an individual rank does usually not provide consistent information about whether the situation the respective indicator is describing can be considered sustainable or not Benchmarking A benchmarking scheme may be described as a tool to compare per-formance against some kind of reference or target value Depending on the purpose this may be the value of the best performer (most common variant found in classic business administration) a predefined policy target or simply the average value of an indicator As part of the benchmarking exercise the reasons for any shortcoming rela-tive to the target value are analyzed In a final step a set of measures necessary to reach the goal is created In a less competitive environment (as assumed for our pur-pose of sustainability evaluations) this offers a particularly good opportunity for knowl-edge transfer SWOT-Analysis The analysis of Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities and Threats is a rather qualitative tool to assess the current situation and the future challenges of a given system and to derive adequate policies The latter follow four principles Build on strengths Eliminate weaknesses Exploit opportunities Mitigate the effect of threat (EU INNOREF 2005) Audits Used for example in international schemes for quality management such as the ISO 9000 series audits have become increasingly popular They constitute a system-atic and documented process for assessing the accomplishment of certain predefined criteria Usually checklists are used The focus is rather on the evaluation of knowledge and the existence of certain procedures than on quantitative measures Audits may be performed internally or by external organisations Successful audits can lead to the certification of a company or organisation for certain standards (ISO Ecological stand-ards etc) In the context of an international evaluation for sustainability in the transport sector audits may for example serve to assess the inclusion of sustainability issues in official policies Labels Labels may be considered a possible outcome of some of the above exercises rather than constituting a true evaluation scheme Organisations (or administrative entities such as cities) can be awarded a label upon fulfilment of certain criteria An example is the label ldquoEnergiestadtrdquo (now also known as European Energy Award see Horbaty 2010) which rewards cities with sustainable energy policies or the Chinese ldquoEco-Cityrdquo label Labels often serve consumer information on products rather than evaluating transport systems In contrast the EcoMobility Label currently being devel-oped by the SHIFT-Project (httpwwwecomobilityorgshift) is exclusively transport-focused and builds on a set of well-defined criteria for more sustainable transportation Awards Similar to labels awards improve the image of the recipient and help to raise awareness for certain issues Criteria for awards may be more or less stringent and often rely on a more qualitative evaluation For example for the Sustainable Transport Award (httpwwwitdporgindexphpsustainable_transport_award see also httpwwwsutporgindexphpoption=com_contentamptask=viewampid=2329ampItemid=155amplang=en) an expert panel selects a city with regard to their efforts to improve the sustain-ability of transport systems An important difference eg to a label or certificate is that awards often include more qualitative indicators and recipients usually have no obliga-tion to continue their efforts after having been rewarded unless they choose to apply again for the next round of the respective award

11

5 A review of existing concepts in the transport sector

Measuring sustainability is not a new topic There are numerous approaches in the transport sector They differ with regard to the definition of sustainability used the dimensions covered and the level of the transport system they are applied to However while most of the concepts develop a set of sustainability indicators there are fewer examples for a true evaluation of sus-tainability This section reviews selected existing approaches focusing on those with practical relevance Most of the schemes examined below are in use or have at least been tested in case studies A key issue is to identify particular strengths of the approaches which are highly divers given their respective goals and methodologiesIn Annex II the concepts are presented in fact-sheets with some key characteristics In addition to a short description of the approach (or project objectives) lessons learnt and a comprehensive list of indicators used overview tables include the following categories Level (eg urban national inter-national) Type of concept (method for measurement andor evaluation) Responsible body (organisation which compiles and publishes the data) Target group (actors who use the indicators andor evaluation) Year (project durationdate of publication) Reference (a link or publication for further reading)

Based on these fact sheets Table 2 evaluates the different approaches with regard to compat-ibility with the definition of sustainable transport in Section 2 and other relevant criteria The analysis of the approaches includes four dimensionsMain application What purpose do the concepts and indicator schemes serve Dimensions covered Do they include all dimensions of sustainability in the transport sector as outlined in our definition in Box 1 Consideration of governance issues Static indicators might not capture current efforts towards sustainability A transport system that seems to be sustainable at the moment may well be moving towards an unsustainable path and vice-versa As such developments are only visible over time when using quantitative indicators it is helpful to consider the current institutional environment The inclusion of sustainability in relevant policy making indicates the likeli-hood that the situation will improve over the coming years Data availability Based on research and the experience of GIZ and its partners this section shows whether the indicators used in the different concepts are available on a global scale or whether significant data gaps will have to be tackled

The analysis shows that there is currently no scheme to assess sustainability in transport that can be considered suitable and mature enough to be used on a global scale At the same time it should be kept in mind that almost none of the concepts were designed to fulfil such a task There are many concepts that offer particular strengths and there is certainly huge potential to learn from good practices It is notable that most schemes treat sustainability as a multidimen-sional issue thus affirming our definition of sustainable transportation presented in Chapter 2 One of the most serious challenges to establish schemes at the global level ie under CSD relates to the availability of data for indicators This certainly requires major efforts to collect and process data to finally put life into any indicator approach

Table 2 Evaluation of existing projectsconcepts

Projectconcept

Main application StatusDimensions of sustainability

Gover-nance

LevelData

availabilityId

entifi

catio

n of

cha

lleng

es

Tran

spar

ency

and

info

rmat

ion

Kno

wle

dg

e tr

ansf

er

Ben

chm

arki

ng a

nd p

olic

y ta

rget

se

ttin

g

Mo

nito

ring

pro

cess

tow

ard

su

stai

nab

ility

Gai

ning

com

pet

itive

ad

vant

ages

Cur

rent

sta

tus

of im

ple

men

tatio

n (e

g o

ngoi

ng t

rialle

d fo

r a

limite

d

per

iod

ava

ilab

le a

s p

relim

inar

y co

ncep

t o

nly)

Env

ironm

enta

l

So

cial

Eco

nom

ic

Pub

lic p

artic

ipat

ion

Con

sid

erin

g th

e in

stitu

tiona

l en

viro

nmen

t a

nd c

urre

nt e

ffo

rts

tow

ard

s su

stai

nab

ility

in t

rans

po

rt

Leve

l of t

rans

po

rt s

yste

m t

o

whi

ch t

he c

onc

ept

is a

pp

lied

Ava

ilab

ility

of i

ndic

ato

rs

on a

glo

bal

leve

l

ADBPSUTA ndash Indicators for sustainable transport

Trialled in case studies () Urban

Significant gaps

SLoCat Indicators

Preliminary concept All levels Large gaps

Urban Transport Benchmarking Initiative

Trial phase terminated Urban

Significant gaps

EST Bangkok Declaration

Preliminary concept

International (urban focus)

Large gaps

OECD Ongoing (Core indica-tors only)

() () International Some gaps

BMU ndash Local Agenda 21

Trial phase terminated Urban Large gaps

The Urban Audit One-time trial (terminated)

Urban Large gaps

TERM Ongoing InternationalSignificant gaps

CSD UNDESA Indicators

Ongoing (last report from 2007)

International Some gaps

UBA ndash Indicators for Sust Transp

Preliminary concept () () National

Significant gaps

BESTRANS One-time trial phase (terminated)

Urban Sectoral

Large gaps

CST STPI Project completed National Some gaps

CAI-Asia Clean Air Scorecard

Trial phase ongoing Urban unknown

Observatorio de movilidad urbana (OMU)

Ongoing () () () Urban Large gaps

UITP Indicators for Sustain-ability in Public Transportation

Trial phase ongoing Sectoral Large gaps

13

6 Suggestions for further discussion ndash Towards evaluation of sustainable transport

Given current trends in the transport sector sustainability is unlikely to be reached unless transport policy is reoriented towards explicit sustainability goals These goals can become more transparent and progress towards policy goals could be assessed through the use of indicators Furthermore indicator schemes are necessary to identify country-specific challenges However the lack of an agreed international definition of sustainable transport as well as of necessary data to establish a set of relevant indicators requires multilateral efforts to remedy these shortcom-ings With transport being a focus theme in 20102011 the CSD and the ldquoRio plus 20rdquo process offers an opportunity to address the issue As a final goal an international scheme is proposed to assess sustainability of transport systems on the national level

A definition for sustainable transport

As a first step it is recommended that the CSD acts as a participative platform to internationally agree on an acceptable definition of sustainable transport and to derive more specific sustainabil-ity goals within the 4 dimensions of sustainability This could build on widely used definitions such as the ones presented in Section 2 Upon development of the definition during CSD 1819 it may be elaborated and endorsed at the Rio Plus 20 Conference in 2012 This process should involve all stakeholders from member countries to legitimate the outcome At the same time although international consensus on a definition of sustainable development applied to transport is imperative it is important to keep in mind that it is at the local level that further action takes place International standards should therefore be compatible to local processes and targets

Selection of indicators and an evaluation method

Based on the selected definition and goals for sustainable transport corresponding indicators and benchmarks for achieving the goals could be agreed in order to set up a suitable scheme for evaluation or at least presentation of results While this task may initially look challenging we note that work can build upon existing experiences Available definitions and indicators for sustainable transport such as presented in this document may serve as basis for discussion The widely recognised Bangkok declaration of the Fifth Regional Environmentally Sustain-able Transport Forum in Asia (EST see Factsheet 4) shows that an agreement can be reached even among a large group of stakeholders with diverse interests Procedures for the selection of indicators have also been established in the CSD context (see UN 2007 pp29) Alternatively approaches of the Global Reporting Initiative (httpwwwglobalreportingorgReporting-FrameworkSector_SupplementsLogisticsAndTransportation) or Castillo and Pitfield (2010) may be considered Professional associations such as the Institute of Transportation Engineers the Transportation Research Board the American Planning Association and others should be involved in developing and applying sustainable transport indicatorsA keys issue at this stage is to identify and evaluate existing transport-related data available from international organisations (eg UNFCCC IEA IRF UNDP ITF World Bank and others) Problems with these data sets should be identified including the types of data collected the geographic areas where they are collected and the quality and availability of the resulting data Action can then be initiated to address data gaps (see below)

14

Building on existing approaches

Several evaluation schemes as presented in Section 5 and Annex II provide ample opportunity to learn from good practices and avoid weaknesses identified In methodological terms we sug-gest keeping the task as simple as possible Indicators and evaluation schemes may be used rather to ldquosend signals about sustainabilityrdquo (Gudmundsson 2003) than to prove sustainability some-thing which is unlikely to be conceptually possible in the near future In addition a selected set of quantitative indicators plus qualitative information may be more suitable than any composite index which is likely to be neither conceptually sound nor acceptable for policy purposes

Implementation

Following the selection of an evaluation scheme CSD should task a suitable international agency with implementing the scheme A second option is to establish a co-ordinator between existing agencies Whatever approach is chosen itrsquos important that the agency or coordinator is independent and does not involve specific commercial interests and is supported by as many stakeholders as possible International financing must guarantee this independency

Besides compiling data from national sources the implementing agency should provide funds to developing country parties to enable them to conduct necessary surveys and measurements To keep costs low linkages with other projects should be explored This refers for example to regular household living standard surveys which have become increasingly common in develop-ing countries They offer the potential to include some relevant transport-related questions eg about commuting costs and distances

As for the time frame CSD could task member countries and the implementing agency to provide necessary data and a first evaluation until the transport sector is to be treated again as a main focus in the CSD thematic cycle

Applicability and benefits of an evaluation scheme

Once established the evaluation scheme may be used for several different tasks As already dis-cussed in Section 4 CSD member states will benefit from the possibility to identify their spe-cific challenges enabling them to reorient their policy based on objective measurement and to assess progress towards chosen sustainability goals As the number of CSD members is limited to only 53 with varying countries taking on three-year-memberships it will be necessary to find a way for establishing the scheme among a wider range of countries The impact of the evalu-ation scheme may not be sufficient especially with regard to global challenges such as climate change if major economies are not part of the effort

In addition the indicators used in an evaluation scheme may be used by donors ndash esp multi-lateral development banks ndash to make sure their funds contribute to projects that foster sustain-able transport This would require from banks to relate to CSD indicators when they approve transport projects and eg ADBrsquos ldquoSustainable Transport Initiativerdquo (httpwwwadborgMediaInFocus2009sustainable-transportasp) may be an interesting case for testing such an approach An audit scheme could be based and linked to the international agreed goals and benchmarks and prove that projects contribute to the overall objective Establishing a scheme for evaluation of progress towards sustainable transport will also help researchers around the

15

Share various challenges with regard to sustainable transportationHave a common interest to assess their situationPossess some or most of the necessary data

Initiates a discussion about sustainability goals in the transport sectorServes as a platform to identify suitable indicators and assessment schemesSecures funding from international donors where necessaryTasks a neutral agency with implementing the scheme

Compiles necessary data from participating partiesLinks with other ongoing work especially in the eld of data collection(eg UNFCCC emission inventory poverty research)Supports data gathering (surveys measurement etc) nancially and with technical assistance where necessaryIs responsible for presentation and dissemination of resultsMay provide policy advise andor link with other relevant stakeholders

Results serve the member countries to assess progress towards sustainability to receive policy adviceand assistance if necessary and to raise public awareness about sustainable transport

MemberCountries

Forum (CSD)

Coordinatingagency

Figure 1Process for establishing an international evaluation scheme

world better understand the ultimate impacts of transport policy and planning decisions Last but not least an evaluation scheme may evolve into a powerful tool to raise public awareness about the subject of sustainable transportation

16

References

Asian Development Bank (ADB) (2006) Sustainable Urban Transport in Asia ndash Making the Vision a Reality Main Report Available online at httpwwwcleanairnetorgcaiasia1412articles-58616_finalpdf

Bohemen van HD (1998) Habitat fragmentation infrastructure and ecological engineer-ing In Ecological Engineering 11 199ndash207

Castillo H Pitfield DE (2010) ELASTIC ndash A methodological framework for iden-tifying and selecting sustainable transport indicators In Transportation Research Part D Vol 15 (4) pp 179ndash188 Available online (for subscribers only) at httpwwwsciencedirectcomscience_ob=ArticleURLamp_udi=B6VH8-4Y1WK67-1amp_user=3857413amp_coverDate=062F302F2010amp_rdoc=1amp_fmt=highamp_orig=searchamp_origin=searchamp_sort=damp_docanchor=ampview=camp_searchStrId=1573125820amp_rerunOrigin=googleamp_acct=C000061585amp_version=1amp_urlVersion=0amp_userid=3857413ampmd5=6adf7d372515dae7c50dc920ec544f69ampsearchtype=a

Centre for Sustainable Transportation (CST) (2002) Sustainable Transportation Perfor-mance Indicator Project Report on Phase 3 Available online at httpwwwcentreforsustainabletransportationorgresearchandstudieshtmSTPerform_Ind

Centre for Sustainable Transportation (CST) (2005) Defining Sustainable Transportation Prepared for Transport Canada Available online at httpcstuwinnipegcadocumentsDefining_Sustainable_2005pdf

COST 356 (2010) Indicators of environmental sustainability in transport ndash An interdiscipli-nary approach to methods Edited by Robert Joumard and Henrik Gudmundsson Avail-able online at httpcost356inretsfrpubreferencereportsIndicators_EST_May_2010pdf

Dalkmann H Huizenga C (2010) Advancing Sustainable Low-Carbon Transport Through the GEF Prepared on behalf of the Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel (STAP) of the Global Environment Facility Available online at httpwwwtransport2012orglinkdlsite=enampobjectId=968ampsrc=

EU INNOREF (2005) SWOT Analysis Report of Innoref Regions Available online at httpwwwdocstoccomdocs24447311SWOT-analysis-PM-PSC-Friuli-Venezia-Giulia-Umbria-Western

GTZ (2009) Facts and Figures on Transport Report prepared for BMU by Dr Andreas Rau Daniel Bongardt and Dominik Schmid Available online at httpwwwsutporg

Gudmundsson H (2003) Making concepts matter sustainable mobility and indicator sys-tems in transport policy In International Social Science Journal Vol 55 (176) pp 199ndash217

Gudmundsson H (2010) Sustainability indicators ndash Success and failure in the transport sector Presentation at Guideline for Sustainable Mobility amp Transport Potsdam 1st External Stakeholder Workshop UIC Declaration and Reporting 14ndash15 10 2010

Horbaty R (2010) Das Label Energiestadtreg Eine Einfuumlhrung Available online at httpwwwenergiestadtch

Litman T (1999) ldquoReinventing Transportation Exploring the Paradigm Shift Needed to Reconcile Sustainability and Transportation Objectivesrdquo Transportation Research Record 1670 Transportation Research Board (httpwwwtrborg) pp 8ndash12 at httpwwwvtpiorgreinventpdf

Litman T (2007) ldquoDeveloping Indicators For Comprehensive And Sustainable Transport Planningrdquo Transportation Research Record 2017 Transportation Research Board (httpwwwtrborg) 2007 pp 10ndash15 at httpwwwvtpiorgsus_tran_indpdf

17

Litman T (2010) Sustainability and Livability Summary of Definitions Goals Objectives and Performance Indicators VTPI (httpwwwvtpiorg) at httpwwwvtpiorgsus_livpdf

Litman T Burwell D (2006) ldquoIssues in Sustainable Transportationrdquo International Journal of Global Environmental Issues Vol 6 No 4 pp 331ndash347 at httpwwwvtpiorgsus_isspdf

SLoCaT (2010) The Improvement of Developing Country Transport Data Collection Analysis and Dissemination Background paper prepared for CSD 18 (Background paper 11) Avail-able online at httpwwwunorgesadsdresourcesres_pdfscsd-18csd18_2010_bp11pdf

SLoCaT (2010) Policy options for Transport Background paper prepared for CSD 18 (Background paper 12) Available online at httpwwwunorgesadsdresourcesres_pdfscsd-18csd18_2010_bp12pdf

Texas Transportation Institute (2002) Sustainable Transportation Conceptualization and Performance Measures Report written by Josias Zietsman and Laurence R Rilett Avail-able online at httpswutctamuedupublicationstechnicalreports167403-1pdf

Umweltbundesamt (UBA) (1997) Konzeptionelle Entwicklung von Nachhaltigkeitsindika-toren fuumlr den Bereich Verkehr Report prepared by Institut fuumlr oumlkologische Wirtschafts-forschung gGmbH (UFOPLAN 1997 Forschungsvorhaben 201 03 21104)

Umweltbundesamt (UBA) (2005) Qualitaumltsziele und Indikatoren fuumlr eine nachhaltige Mobilitaumlt in Stadt und Region ndash Anwenderleitfaden Dessau

Urban Transport Benchmarking Initiative (UTBI) (2006) Year Three Final Report Pre-pared for European Commission DG TREN Authored by Neil Taylor Available online at httpwwwtransportbenchmarkseu

United Nations (UN) (2007) Indicators of Sustainable Development Guidelines and Meth-odologies Third Edition New York

World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) (1987) Our Common Future Oxford

18

Annex I Attributes of a good performance measure

Quality Explanation

Able to discriminateMust be able to differentiate between the individual components that are affecting the performance of the system

Able to integrateMust be able to integrate the sustainability aspects of environmen-tal social and economic sustainability

AcceptableThe general community must assist in identifying and developing the performance measures

AccurateMust be based on accurate information of known quality and origin

AffordableMust be based on readily available data or data that can be obtained at a reasonable cost

Appropriate level of detailMust be specified and used at the appropriate level of detail and level of aggregation for the questions it is intended to answer

Have a target Must have a target level or benchmark against which to compare it

MeasurableThe data must be available and the tools need to exist to perform the required calculations

MultidimensionalMust be able to be used over time frames at different geographic areas with different scales of aggregation and in the context of multimodal issues

Not influencedMust not be influenced by exogenous factors that are difficult to control for or that the planner is not even aware of

Realistic Within the availability of resources knowledge and time

Relevant Must be compatible with overall goals and objectives

SensitiveMust detect a certain level of change that occurs in the transpor-tation system

Show trendsMust be able to show trends over time and provide early warnings about problems and irreversible trends

TimelyMust be based on timely information that is capable of being updated at regular intervals

Understandable and specificMust be well defined understandable and easy to interpret even by the community at large

Source Extended overview based on Texas Transportation Institute 2002 24

19

Annex II Introduction to approaches on measuring sustainability

Factsheet 1 ADB indicators to measure sustainable transport

Type of concept Indicator set

Level Urban

Responsible body Asian Development Bank Partnership for Sustainable Urban Transport in Asia (PSUTA)

Target group Stakeholders in Asian cities Case Studies in Xirsquoan Hanoi and Pune

Year 2004ndash2006

Status Trialled in case studies

Link httpwwwcleanairnetorgcaiasia1412articles-58616_finalpdf

Approach The project aimed ldquoto help municipal decision makers to better understand the sustainability or lack of it of their urban transport systems and to develop more structured and quantified approaches to policy makingrdquo (ADB 2006)

Description and lessons learntBased on a framework for sustainable transport developed by PSUTA the definition of indicators was handled in a decentralised manner The three partner cities Xirsquoan (PRC) Hanoi (Vietnam) and Pune (India) each reported a set of indicators which were deemed relevant and for which the necessary data were available in the respective local context The goal ldquowas not a complete set of numbers rather a recognition of which indicators counted the most for good policy development and a strategy to get the information required for those indicatorsrdquo (ADB 2006) An important outcome was the identification of major data gaps in the three citiesThe decentralised approach of this concept is especially noteworthy as it involved numerous local stakeholders and thus increased acceptance of the indicator set which of course is a challenge for comparability Another important point is the focus on governance found in the sustainability framework It highlights the relevance of current municipal transport policy for future progress towards sustainability ndash an issue difficult to capture by using only static quantitative indicators

Main application [] Identification of challenges[ ] Transparency and information[ ] Knowledge transfer[] Benchmarking and policy target setting[ ] Monitoring process toward sustainability[ ] Gaining competitive advantages

Dimension of Sustainability

[] Environmental[] Social[] Economic[0 ] Public participationThe scheme is considering the institutional environment and current efforts towards sustainability in transport

Availability of data on a global level

Significant gaps

ADB Indicators to measure sustainable transport

Minutes lost per person per km per day due to congestion Deaths per 1 million kilometre of vehicle use Days exceeding AQ limits Transport industry profitability Transport costs as share of household budget Ability to measure and control traffic flow Existence of road safety and air quality laws Fuel quality and emission standards

20

Factsheet 2 SLoCat Initiative sustainable low carbon transport ndash definition goals objectives and performance indicators

Level On all levels

Responsible body ndash not defined ndash

Target group ndash not defined ndash

Year 2010

Status Preliminary concept

Link httpwwwslocatnetwp-contentuploads201012SLoCat-2010-Sustainability-and-Livability-Summary-draftdoc

Approach Based on earlier work by Todd Litman (see reference section) the concept of SLoCat provides a consistent formulation of sustainability goals and probably one of the most comprehensive lists of indicators available to monitor progress towards such defined targets

Description and lessons learntThe concept covers all relevant dimensions of sustainability and includes possible measures of governance While the very large number of indicators implies serious challenges with regard to data availability the concept may well serve as a menu from which to choose suitable items for a more confined internationally applicable set

Main application [ ] Identification of challenges[ ] Transparency and information[ ] Knowledge transfer[] Benchmarking and policy target setting[] Monitoring process toward sustainability[ ] Gaining competitive advantages

[] Environmental[] Social[] Economic[] Public participation

Large gaps

SLoCatLitman Indicators to measure sustainable transport

Per capita GDP Transport budget and road taxes Efficiency of road parking insurance and fuel prices (prices reflect full economic costs) Access to education and employment opportunities Support for local industries Transport efficiency of freight and commercial passenger transport Per capita transport energy consumption Energy consumption per tonkilometre Per capita use of imported fuels Availability and Quality of affordable modes (walking cycling ridesharing and public transport) Portion of low-income households that spend more than 20 of budgets on transport Results of performance audits Service delivery unit costs compared with peers Economic viability of transport operations (specifically public transport operations) Prices reflect economic as well as social and environmental costs Transport system diversity Portion of transport system that is universal design Portion of destinations accessible by transport services that reflect universal design Participation of women elderly and children in transport systems design Egrave

21

Per capita traffic casualty (injury and death) rates Traveller assault (crime) rates Human exposure to harmful pollutants Portion of population that makes use of active transport modes Land use mix Walkability and bikability Interconnectivity of transport modes Quality of road and street environments Preservation of cultural resources and traditions Responsiveness to traditional communities Accessible entertainment and arts Cultural interchange Per capita emissions of global air pollutants (CO2 CFCs CH4 etc) Transport infrastructure and operations affected by climate change Per capita emissions of local air pollutants (PM VOCs NOX CO etc) Air quality standards and management plans Health impacts Traffic noise levels Noise standards and noise management Occurrences of fuel leaks Management of used oil leaks and stormwater Share of impervious pavements Portion of land paved for transport facilities Per capita land devoted to transport facilities Support for smart growth development Policies to protect high value farmlands and ecological habitat Share of open spaces recyclable materials in production process of vehicles recyclable materials in infrastructure Per vehiclemodeobject non-recyclablerecyclable materials ratio Mandates staffing budgets Policy instruments Capacity of institutions to implement sustainable transport principles Planning considers all significant objectives impacts and options Transport funds can be spent on alternative modes and demand management programs if most cost effective and beneficial overall Availability of planning information and documents Portion of population engaged in planning process

22

Factsheet 3 Urban Transport Benchmarking Initiative

Type of concept Indicator set + Ranking

Level Urban

Responsible body European Commission Directorate General for Energy and Transport

Target group European Cities

Year 2003ndash2006

Status Trial phase terminated

Link httpwwwtransportbenchmarkseu

Approach The key goal of this EU-funded project was to ldquocompare the transport systems of the participating cities in order to identify and promote interesting practices in urban transportrdquo (UTBI 2006) Numerous stakeholders in participating cities were involved and a total of 44 cities provided information on the selected common indicators during the course of the project

Description and lessons learntThe results of the exercise are presented in the form of a ranking for each individual quantitative indicator comparing cities with similar characteristics The working groups established gathered more qualitative and in-depth information on specifics topics such as cycling or public transport organisation and policy Their goal was not ldquocreating a set of lsquowinnersrsquo and lsquolosersrsquo [] because it may dishearten those perceived to have lsquobad practicesrsquo whereas these groups of participants probably have the most to gain from this type of projectrdquo (UTBI 2006) Best practices therefore were loosely defined as interesting practices in the various urban transport systemsAlthough the term lsquoBenchmarkingrsquo might be slightly misleading for this project as there were no defined benchmarks for which to strive it certainly provides a good example of using a common indicator scheme to derive relevant policy implications and to learn from each other The approach to avoid a ldquoblame and shamerdquo of low performers is especially noteworthy as any evaluation scheme on a global level would have to deal with similar challenges

Main application [] Identification of challenges[ ] Transparency and information[] Knowledge transfer[] Benchmarking and policy target setting[ ] Monitoring process toward sustainability[ ] Gaining competitive advantages

[] Environmental[] Social[] Economic[ ] Public participation

Significant gaps

Urban Transport Benchmarking Initiative Indicators to measure sustainable transport

Size of regional administrative area Size of urban administrative area Number of residents of the regional administrative area Number of residents of the urban administrative area Description of key geographical features influencing transport One-way length of urban transport infrastructure in the administrative area (roadtrainmetrotram) One-way length of flexible urban transport routes in the administrative area (bus trolleybus ferry) One-way length of bus lanes and segregated right of way for trams One-way length of cycle network If possible data to be segregated according to cycle lanes on amp off road tracks and routes Number of cars and motorcycles registered in the administrative area submitted separately Number of individual vehicles (by mode) operating in the administrative area of public transport vehicles which are wheelchair accessible by mode Egrave

23

Cleanliness of vehicles in the public transport fleet Sustainable fuel technologies for vehicles in the public transport fleet Additional pollution reduction technologies for vehicles in the public transport fleet Average fuel consumption of vehicles in the public transport fleet Age of the vehicles in the public transport fleet of public transport stopsstations which are wheelchair accessible Average speed of carsmotorcycles in peak hour Average speed of busestrainsmetro vehiclestrams in peak hour Most frequent service intervals of busestrainsmetro vehiclestrams in peak hour Total number of daily one-way journeys by mode in the administrative area on a weekday Total number of daily one-way journeys by mode in the administrative area on a Saturday Total number of passengers carried by all public transport modes (segregated by mode) Total distance of passenger kilometres travelled by all public transport modes (segregated by mode) Total farebox revenue from ticket sales for all public transport modes (segregated by mode) in 2003 The cost in euro of a single 1 km and 5 km public transport trip to the city centre (by mode) The cost in euro of an annual pass for 1 km 5 km and 10 km public transport trips to the city centre (by mode) Average cost to user of car use Capital expenditure on public transport by mode averaged over the last 5 years Capital expenditure on roads averaged over the last 5 years GDP per head of population The number of urban administrative area residents in employment and the number of positions held in the city Number of injuries on the road network per annum Number of deaths on the road network per annum

24

Factsheet 4 Bangkok Declaration for 2020 ndash sustainable transport goals for 2010ndash2020

Level International with urban focus

Responsible body Fifth Regional Environmentally Sustainable Transport (EST) amp Member states

Target group Member states

Year 2010

Link httpwwwitdporgdocumentsFinal_Bangkok-Declaration_28Aug2010_Finalpdf

Approach Complementing a joint declaration on the willingness to fostering policies for sustainable transportation the EST parties set up a comprehensive list of potential indicators to ldquoprovide guidelines for objective measurement of the efficiency and effectiveness of the transport system to achieve the desired goalsrdquo (EST 2010)

Description and lessons learntAs the concept has only been developed very recently no user experiences exist so far The use of the presented indicator set is entirely voluntary and member countries are encouraged to develop additional indicators as necessary in the local context The indicators are structured according to the Avoid Shift Improve (ASI)-approach for sustainable transport policies and may serve to measure effectiveness of the respective strategies

Large gaps

Bangkok Declaration Indicators to measure sustainable transport

About 100 individual indicators in the following categories Integrated Land Use-Transport Planning Mixed-Use Development Information and Communications Technologies (ICT) Non-Motorised Transport Public Transport Transportation Demand Management Inter-City Passenger and Goods Transport Cleaner Fuels and Technologies Standards Inspection and Maintenance Intelligent Transportation Systems- Freight Transport Safety Health Air Pollution and Noise Climate Change and Energy Security Social Equity Finance and Economics Information and Awareness Institutions and Governance

25

Egrave

Factsheet 5 OECD indicators for the integration of environmental concerns into transport policies

Level International

Responsible body OECD

Target group Governments and sectoral decision makers in member states

Year 1999

Status Ongoing (Core indicators only)

Link httpwwwoecdorgLongAbstract03425en_2825_499047_2436259_1_1_1_3742500html

Approach The main purpose of the OECD concept is ldquoto promote the integration of environmental concerns into transport policies and decisionsrdquo (OECD 1999)

Description and lessons learntThe OECD concept may be considered a basic evaluation scheme for one dimension of sustainability as it focuses on the environmental indicators (although other dimensions are touched upon as well) Evaluating status and progress of sustainability is explicitly not part of the effort as interpretation of the data is left to complementing OECD programs such as the regular reports on the core set of sustainability indicators However results are presented both in statistical tables and in the form of country rankings which constitute at least a basic possibility for performance comparison An important aspect is that indicators have been compiled for several years thus identifying trends

Main application [] Identification of challenges[] Transparency and information[ ] Knowledge transfer[] Benchmarking and policy target setting[ ] Monitoring process toward sustainability[ ] Gaining competitive advantages

[] Environmental[0 ] Social[0 ] Economic[ ] Public participation

Some gaps

OECD Indicators to measure sustainable transport

Passenger transport trends by mode Freight transport trends by mode Road traffic trends and densities (passenger goods) Trends of airport traffic number of movements Capital expenditure total and by mode Road network length and density Rail network length and density Road vehicle stocks (passenger goods) Structure of road vehicle fleet (by type of fuel by age classes share of ldquocleanrdquo vehicles) Private car ownership Final energy consumption by the transport sector (share in total per capita by mode) Consumption of road fuels (total per vehicle-km by type diesel gasoline other) Change in land use by transport infrastructures Transport emissions CO2 NOX VOC CO etc (share in total by mode) and emissions intensities (per capita per vehicle km per GDP) Population exposed to air pollution from transport Oil released from marine transport (through accidents and discharges during current operations) Population exposed to transport noise greater than 65 dB(A)

26

Transport-related waste and related recovery rates Hazardous waste imported or exported (tonnes) Road traffic fatalities (number of people killed or injured per vehicle-km) Hazardous materials transported by mode (tonne-km) Environmental damage relating to transport Social cost of transport Total expenditure on pollution prevention and clean-up RampD expenditure on ldquoecovehiclesrdquo RampD expenditure on clean transport fuels Direct subsidies Total economic subsidies (direct amp indirect subsidies plus externalities) Relative taxation of vehicles and vehicle use (including road tolls) Structure of road fuel prices in real terms (by type of fuel) Trends in public transport prices in real terms

Note that not all of the above indicators have actually been collected and presented in the report cited

27

Factsheet 6 Service quality targets and indicators for sustainable mobility in cities (Local Agenda 21UBA)

Type of concept Indicator set + Development of city-specific sustainability goals

Level Urban

Responsible body Federal Environmental Agency (UmweltbundesamtUBA)

Target group Municipal stakeholders in four German cities (Erfurt Goumlrlitz Loumlrrach Herdecke)

Year 1999ndash2004

Link httpwwwumweltdatendepublikationenfpdf-l3793pdf

Approach The aim of this project embedded in the local Agenda 21 was to formulate goals for sustainable mobility and to establish a set of indicators which may be used to measure progress towards such defined targets The procedures were applied to three medium-sized German cities as case studies

Description and lessons learntEven though the concept is embedded in the specific context of German urban transport planning there are interesting results with relevance for an international evaluation scheme The most important one refers to the fourth dimension of sustainability proposed in this document Participatory transport planning and policymaking As part of the Local Agenda 21 the development of sustainability goals and according indicators was conducted city-specific involving not only urban planning and transport specialists but also citizens engaged in Agenda 21 initiatives This process contributed to successful outcomes of the project such as particular measures taken in cities to reach defined sustainability goals The experiences of this project may be used as background information eg when designing indicators (or even audits) for the participatory dimension of sustainability

[] Environmental[] Social[ ] Economic[] Public participation

Large gaps

Local Agenda 21UBA Indicators to measure sustainable transport

Major indicators Share of environmentally friendly transport modes in total trips ( of total) Share of main streets with adequate facilities for pedestrians ( of total) Share of pedestrian streetszones with traffic calming ( of total network) Share of main streets with adequate bikeways or 30 kmh-speed restriction ( of total) Share of inhabitants living within a 300 m radius of a bus stop or 500 m for light railS-Bahn Share of main streets with 30 kmh speed restriction ( of total) Share of population exposed to more than 65 dB(A) during daytime and more than 55dB(A) during the night ( of total) Share of population affected by a critical concentration of PM10 ( of total) Persons killed or severely injured in road accidents in the city area per 10000 inhabitants

28

Factsheet 7 Urban audit ndash Towards the benchmarking of quality of life in 58 European cities

Level Urban

Responsible body European Commission and cities

Target group Municipal stakeholders and the public

Year 2000ndash2004

Status One-time trial (terminated)

Link httpwwwurbanauditorg

Approach The overall goal of the extensive set of indicators was to measure the quality of life in European cities

Description and lessons learntTransportation plays a minor role with only half a dozen of the about 100 single indicators related to issues such as the modal split and GHG emissions of the transport sector Data are available for several years The latest data set has been collected in 2004 The related website allows user so select any of the numerous indicators and compare them across the city sample Results can also be presented in the form of rankings Despite the project title there is no true audit or benchmarking as no target values or policy goals are provided Nevertheless the web-based possibility for every user to compile specific data and rankings of interest may be of interest for dissemination and presentation of an international evaluation scheme to a wider audience

Main application [ ] Identification of challenges[] Transparency and information[] Knowledge transfer[ ] Benchmarking and policy target setting[ ] Monitoring process toward sustainability[ ] Gaining competitive advantages

[] Environmental[] Social[ ] Economic[ ] Public participation

Large gaps

Urban Audit Indicators to measure sustainable transport

Travel patterns (length mode purpose of trips) Road accidents (death or serious injury) per 1000 of the population

29

Factsheet 8 Transport and Environment Reporting Mechanism (TERM)

Level International

Responsible body European Environment Agency (EEA)

Target group Wide audience from high-level policymakers to technical policy experts

Year Since 2000

Status Ongoing

Link httpwwweeaeuropaeuthemestransportterm

Approach Published annually the TERM reports seek to monitor the progress and effectiveness of European transport and environment integration strategies on the basis of a core set of indicators All EU members plus EFTA countries and Turkey are covered

Description and lessons learntThe set of indicators is linked to several policy goals (see below) Results are presented partly as rankings and the repeated collection of indicators offers the possibility to illustrate trends

Seven key questions addressed by TERM indicators1 Is the environmental performance of the transport sector improving2 Are we getting better at managing transport demand and at improving the modal split3 Are spatial and transport planning becoming better coordinated so as to match transport demand to the need for access4 Are we optimising the use of existing transport infrastructure capacity and moving towards a better balanced intermodal

transport system5 Are we moving towards a fairer and more efficient pricing system which ensures that external costs are internalised6 How rapidly are cleaner technologies being implemented and how efficiently are vehicles being used7 How effectively are environmental management and monitoring tools being used to support policy- and decision-making

Main application [ ] Identification of challenges[] Transparency and information[ ] Knowledge transfer[] Benchmarking and policy target setting[] Monitoring process toward sustainability[ ] Gaining competitive advantages

Significant gaps

TERM Indicators to measure sustainable transport

Transport final energy consumption by mode Transport emissions of greenhouse gases Transport emissions of air pollutants Exceedances of air quality objectives due to traffic Exposure to and annoyance by traffic noise Transport accident fatalities Passenger transport Freight transport Fuel prices and taxes Transport taxes and charges Internalisation of external costs Energy efficiency and specific CO2 emissions Specific emissions Occupancy rates of passenger vehicles Load factors for freight transport Uptake of cleaner and alternative fuels Size of the vehicle fleet Average age of the vehicle fleet Proportion of vehicle fleet meeting certain emission standards

30

Factsheet 9 CSD indicators of sustainable development

Level International

Responsible body CSD Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations

Target group Member states (CSD indicators shall ldquoprovide a reference or sample set for use by countries to track progress toward nationally-defined goals in particular and sustainable development in generalrdquo)

Year Since 2001

Status Ongoing (last report from 2007)

Link httpwwwunorgesadsddsd_aofw_indind_indexshtmlutm_source=OldRedirectamputm_medium=redirectamputm_content=dsdamputm_campaign=OldRedirectFurther and more up-to-date national reports with some containing information on transport aspects are available at httpwwwunorgesadsddsd_aofw_nini_indexshtml

Approach CSD indicators aim to support countries in their efforts to develop and implement national indicators for sustainable development which then serve for evaluation monitoring reporting and evaluation of national sustainability strategies

Description and lessons learntThe set of indicators developed by CSD comprises 50 core indicators structured along about 15 thematic clusters Transport is treated as part of the category ldquoConsumption and production pat-ternsrdquo and includes modal split and energy intensity as indicators The design of the overall set of indicators captures all dimensions of sustainability while the scope of the few transport-related indicators is somewhat limited given the necessity to limit the overall number of indicators The CSD concept is designed to illustrate trends in sustainable development not specifically sustain-ability in the transport sector However the process of establishing the indicator set (described in UN 2007 pp 5) should be studied and may serve as model for a transport-specific scheme

Some gaps

CSD Indicators to measure sustainable transport

Relevant transport-related indicators Ambient air pollution concentrations of ozone particu late matter (PM10 and PM25) sulphur dioxide nitrogen dioxide lead Changes of the distribution of land uses within a country over time Modal split of passenger transport Modal split of freight transport Energy intensity (fuel used per unit of freight-kilometre hauled and per unit of passenger-km travelled by mode)

31

Factsheet 10 Development of sustainability indicators for the transport sector (UBA)

Level National

Responsible body Umweltbundesamt (UBA) ndash German Environmental Protection Agency

Target group National government stakeholders

Year 1997

Link na

Approach This research report commissioned by the German Federal Environmental Agency (UBA) aimed at further developing and complementing sustainability indicators in the transport sector

Description and lessons learntThe concept provides a comprehensive conceptual and methodological framework and suggests eight key indicators Although the study considered three dimensions of sustainability no indicator was found suitable to represent the economic dimension In addition the authors of the study suggest to beyond quantitative indicators and to set up a lsquosustainability reportrsquo that considers qualitative information related especially to the institutional environment

Main application [ ] Identification of challenges[ ] Transparency and information[ ] Knowledge transfer[ ] Benchmarking and policy target setting[] Monitoring process toward sustainability[ ] Gaining competitive advantages

[] Environmental[] Social[0 ] Economic[ ] Public participation

Significant gaps

UBA Indicators to measure sustainable transport

Final energy consumption of the transport sector (pa) Air pollution (CO2 NOX VOC PM) caused by the transport sector (pa) Share of land surface not scattered by major transport infrastructure Supply and quality of transport services (public transport) Supply of grocery stores close to residential areas Share of population affected by traffic noise Number of people killed or injured in traffic accidents Share of urban surface devoted to transport infrastructure

32

Factsheet 11 BESTRANS ndash Benchmarking of energy and emission performance in urban public transport operations

Type of concept Indicator set + Ranking + Benchmarking

Level UrbanSectoral

Responsible body European CommissionSAVE Program TISPT Consulting

Target group Urban Public Transport Operators

Year 2002ndash2004

Status One-time trial phase (terminated)

Link httpwwwtisptprojbestrans

Approach This project involved 22 public transport operators in several European countries A set of indicators was used to determine the fuel efficiency and emission performance of their vehicle fleets

Description and lessons learntDue to the focus on the companyoperator level the indicator set itself is of limited use for the purpose of this document The most interesting point of this concept is its easy-to-understand method of illustrating the benchmarking results Beside rankings and plot graphs colour codes were used to show how individual operators performed compared to average values of indicators (see below) A SWOT analysis gathered additional qualitative data for each operator to identify external and internal factors which influence the quantitative results

BESTRANS benchmarking visualisation

gt 30 better than average

10 ndash 30 better than average

Average +- 10

10 ndash 30 worse than average

gt 30 worse than average

Main application [ ] Identification of challenges[ ] Transparency and information[] Knowledge transfer[] Benchmarking and policy target setting[ ] Monitoring process toward sustainability[] Gaining competitive advantages

[] Environmental[ ] Social[] Economic[ ] Public participation

Large gaps

BESTRANS Indicators to measure sustainable transport

Main categories Energy Consumption per Passenger Km Energy Consumption per Vehicle Kilometre Energy consumption per place-km

Energy Consumption per Passenger-km Survey Data

Operator Code MWhMpkm Occupancy Rate

18 882 05620 1227 060

6 1347 03913 1706 03812 2628 0315 2676 033

11 3028 0224 3157 0203 3473 0172 3475 0271 4316 0159 4902 014

14 4986 02216 5042 02310 5599 0138 5766 0187 6059 014

33

Factsheet 12 CST Sustainable Transport Performance Indicators (STPI)

Level National

Responsible body Centre for Sustainable Transportation (Toronto Canada)

Target group Official Stakeholders in Canada

Year 2000ndash2002

Status Project completed

Link httpwwwcentreforsustainabletransportationorgresearchandstudieshtmSTPerform_Ind

Approach One of the main reasons for CST to start the development of an indicator set for sustainable transportation was the official request for ldquoquantifiable performance measurements based on the vision and definition [see Box 1] that can be used to track progress toward sustainabilityrdquo (CST 2002)

Description and lessons learntThe indicators are based on various official Canadian statistics which usually provide data for several years As with other concepts already introduced above this good availability of data allows for the identification of trends Interestingly the STPI project also aimed to develop a single possibly composite indicator to represent overall sustainability in the Canadian transport system However there were serious doubts whether ldquoa single meaningful non-controversial indicator could be realisedrdquo (CST 2002) Instead the use of key indicators representing the major issues was suggested Fossil fuel use for transport per-capita use of urban land energy intensity of cars and trucks as well as emissions intensity of the road vehicle fleet The latter three shall serve as indicators of progress towards sustainability while the first one illustrates current trendsAnother noteworthy feature is the methodology used in some publications to illustrate progress towards sustainability by using smileys (see below for an example)

Trend illustration in the CST indicator scheme

Indicator 4 shows a decline in injuries and fatalities from road transport and thus progress towards sustainable transportation

Indicator 5 mostly shows increased movement of people Present transport patterns mean this represents movement away from sustainability eth

Indicator 6 shows substantial growth in the movement of freight Because of freightrsquos impacts and costs this represents movement away from sustainable transportation

Main application [] Identification of challenges[ ] Transparency and information[ ] Knowledge transfer[] Benchmarking and policy target setting[] Monitoring process toward sustainability[ ] Gaining competitive advantages

Some gaps

STPI Indicators to measure sustainable transport

Use of fossil fuel energy for all transport Greenhouse gas emissions from all transport Index of emissions of air pollutants from road transport Index of incidence of road injuries and fatalities Total motorised movement of people Total motorised movement of freight Share of passenger travel not by landbased public transport Movement of light-duty passenger vehicles Urban land use per capita Length of paved roads Index of relative household transport costs Index of the relative cost of urban transit Index of energy intensity of cars and trucks Index of emissions intensity of the road vehicle fleet

34

Factsheet 13 Clean Air Scorecard

Type of concept Indicator set + Benchmarking

Level Urban

Responsible body CAI-Asia Sustainable Urban Mobility in Asia (SUMA) with support from SIDA and ADB

Target group Asian Cities

Year 2010

Status Trial phase ongoing

Link httpwwwcleanairinitiativeorgportalScorecard

Approach The Clean Air Scorecard developed by CAI-Asia represents a methodology for an objective and comprehensive evaluation of a cityrsquos management of air pollutants and GHG emissions and identification of improvement areas

Description and lessons learntThe Scorecard consists of three indices which assess Air pollution levels of cities against World Health Organization (WHO) guideline values (Air Pollution and Health Index) The institutional environment of the city focusing on the capacity to measure emissions and their impacts as well as the existence of adequate policies and financing to reduce emissions (Clean Air Management Capacity Index) The existence and enforcement of national and local policies and actions to address air pollutants and GHG emissions (Clean Air Policies and Actions Index)

The three indices contribute equally to the overall score which can reach a maximum of 100 points Results are presented for each index thus highlighting strengths and weaknesses of particular citiesAlthough capturing only one of the several dimensions of a sustainable transport system the Clean Air Scorecard provides a good example of a true evaluation scheme which uses indicators relative to benchmarks (such as WHO guidelines) and produces a result which is easy to understand for policymakers and the general public

[] Environmental[ ] Social[ ] Economic[ ] Public participation

unknown

Clean Air Scorecard Indicators to measure sustainable transport

Air Pollution and Health Index (includes PM10 PM25 SO2 CO NO2 Pb O3)Clean Air Management Capacity Index (a cityrsquos capacity to establish an emissions inventory assess the status of air quality and its impact on health environment and the economy and to provide a suitable institutional financial and policy framework for emission reductions)Clean Air Policies and Actions Index (existence and enforcement of national and local policies and actions to address air pollutants and GHG emissions)

35

Factsheet 14 Observatorio de movilidad urbana (OMU)

Level Urban

Responsible body CAF Development Bank

Target group Latin American Cities

Year 20092010

Status Ongoing

Link httpomucafcom (Spanish only)2010 Report httpomucafcommedia2537caf_omu_jun2010pdf

Approach The OMU gathers data on urban transport characteristics for 15 Latin American Cities 11 different categories are included ranging from basic socioeconomic background data to detailed information about modal splits and vehicle fleets as well as emissions and costs

Description and lessons learntThe associated website offers excellent spreadsheet tables for every data category which enables users to do their own data analysis The additional report provides comprehensive information on the state of urban transportation in the 15 cities and includes some basic ranking and benchmarking efforts (eg for costs of public transportation) However there are neither underlying definitions of sustainability nor any policy goals to which the data are connected While it may not be considered a true sustainability evaluation scheme OMU certainly constitutes a noteworthy effort to compile relevant data on characteristics and negative effects of urban transportation

Main application [] Identification of challenges[] Transparency and information[ ] Knowledge transfer[ ] Benchmarking and policy target setting[ ] Monitoring process toward sustainability[ ] Gaining competitive advantages

[0 ] Environmental[0 ] Social[0 ] Economic[ ] Public participation

Large gaps

OMU Indicators to measure sustainable transport

The following 11 categories are included each with about 2ndash20 individual indicators Socioeconomic characteristics Transport system asset value Costs and tariffs Road safety Emissions Energy consumption and costs Public Transportation General mobility characteristics Vehicle fleets Infrastructure

36

Factsheet 15 UITP evaluation of sustainability in public transportation

Level Sectoral

Responsible body International Association of Public Transport (UITP)

Target group UITP members (UITP Sustainable Development Charter Signatories)

Year 2011

Link Further information will be available after the 59th UITP World Congress amp Exhibition (11ndash14 April 2011 Dubai) For general information on UITPrsquos activities see httpwwwuitporgPublic-Transportsustainabledevelopment

Approach UITP members are invited to use a self-assessment tool to evaluate their sustainability performance with regard to a number of different indicators

Description and lessons learntThe UITP evaluation scheme which is currently being trialled among a number of members serves as a tool for public transport operators to assess their own performance with regard to sustainability Indicators should be shown in their developmentprogress compared to previous period to identify trends over time Some very early lessons learnt point at the importance of a common understanding of the meaning of indicators and their purpose For the final version of the evaluation scheme a reduced number of indicators are envisaged

Main application [] Identification of challenges[] Transparency and information[ ] Knowledge transfer[ ] Benchmarking and policy target setting[] Monitoring process toward sustainability[ ] Gaining competitive advantages

Large gaps

UITP Indicators to measure sustainable transport

Total passengers carried (Urbansuburbanregional) Information on revenue sources EBIT and EBITDA data Percentage of total investment to total depreciation Overall costkm (by modevehicle type) Percentage of development of revenues from operations Overall cost recovery ratio Modal split of public transport in served area Annual capital investments in public transport improvement or improved efficiency Average age of vehicle fleet Average commercial speed Produced seat-kilometres per operations employee Incorporation of sustainable development in purchasing and investment processes Passengers with concession or subscription tickets compared to total number of passengers Separate right-of-way in network Coverage rate (percentage of households and jobs well served within 500 meters from a public transport stop) Jobs directly and indirectly associated with the production Are sustainable principles included in personnel evaluations and rewardsawardsbonuses Ability to satisfy the present demand Transparency of payments Environmental Management System in operation Sites certified at international or national level Total amount of operational energy use for traction per passenger-km (in kJ) Total amount of operational energy use for non-traction purposes Egrave

37

Percentage of total renewable energy use for traction amp non traction Energy (kJ) used per 100 km and trend Direct CO2 emissions for operations (scope 1 or tailpipe emissions from vehiclesrolling stock) CO2 emissions (in grams) of energy use per passenger-km Percentage of fleets considered clean (meeting Euro 4 Standard or better and fitted with particulate filters) Noise levels noise monitoring and noise mapping Air quality management Percentage of fresh to recycled water use (recycled includes harvested rainwater) Soil contamination from hazardous waste and oil spills Waste sorting policy Life cycle analysis of products and services Recycled or lsquoecorsquo products Low or no chemical cleaning products Introduction of innovations with quantifiable resource saving results Training in eco or defensive driving Customer satisfaction Employee satisfaction survey Employee Turnover Rate Annual trips by public transport per resident citytown-wide (on average) compared to all motorised trips How accessible is your network to the less abled Special workforce health programmes (over and above the legal requirements) Investment on training and personal development of staff Average percentage of days of absence to total working days of employees Employees with the possibility to flex-time or flexible hours Do you provide cregraveche or child care facilities (help over legal requirements) Average wage in companyorganisation in relation to average wage in citystate Do you have a specific diversity policy Jobs offered to less abled disadvantaged people or underprivileged people Do you have community relationships (volunteerCSR programmes) Health and Safety infractions (accidents in the workplace or on network) Number of accidents with personal liabilitynumber of injuries or fatalities on site for non staffemployees Programme for employee mobility management (expressed as numbers of employees not using a car to come to work) Do you have one or more youth orientated programmes Participation in events related to sustainable transport Does your organisation have a Sustainable Development Manager special business unitdepartment or working group Does your organisation report regularly on Sustainable Development performance at a Board level Websitesection about Sustainable Development Sustainable development charterprogrammes Does your organisation have an external stakeholder engagement processes Does your organisation have an internal stakeholder engagement processes Policy on human rights labour practises and fair trading with suppliers and procurement National or international standards such as ISO 14001 EMAS OHSAS 18001 Quality Management processes Risk management process Are your sustainable development reports independently verified Do you have anti-corruption policies Sustainable procurement and tendering procedures Recognition awards received at internationalnational regional or local level Does your organisation have a policy on recycling Does your organisation have a scrappage policy Is your citytown taking measures to improve intermodality with any of the following schemes Do you use participate in Global Reporting Initiative Balanced score card approach ISO 26000 (CSR guidelines) or AA 1000 (for stakeholder engagement)

Deutsche Gesellschaft fuumlrInternationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH

ndash German Technical Cooperation ndash

P O Box 518065726 ESCHBORN GERMANYT +49-6196-79-1357F +49-6196-79-801357E transportgizdeI httpwwwgizde

Abstract
1Introduction
2Sustainability in the transport sector
3The need for sustainability indicators
4Sustainability indicators and evaluation schemes
- 41What are suitable indicators of sustainability
- 42Frameworks for indicators
- - 5A review of existing concepts in the transport sector
  - 6enspSuggestions for further discussion ndash Towards evaluation of sustainable transport
  - References
  - Annex I Attributes of a good performance measure
  - Annex II Introduction to approaches on measuring sustainability

Page 2: Sustainable Transport Evaluation · 2017-10-16 · 4 Sustainable Transport Evaluation – SUT Technical Document # 7 box 2 Key challenges in the transport sector Air pollution Transport

b

About the authorsDaniel Bongardt is holding a position as Transport Policy Advisor at German Interna-tional Cooperation in Eschborn Germany His main area of work includes transport and climate change policyDominik Schmid is Research Assistant at the Department of Economic Geography University of Giessen Germany with a focus on development studies and sustainable transportationCornie Huizenga is currently working as joint convener of the Partnership on Sustain-able Low Carbon Transport and as a consult-ant for both the Asian Development Bank and the Inter-American Development BankTodd Litman is founder and executive direc-tor of the Victoria Transport Policy Institute an independent research organisation dedi-cated to developing innovative solutions to transport problems

i

IMPRINT

Eschborn March 2011

Disclaimer

ii

Contents

Abstract 1

1 Introduction 2

References 16

1

Abstract

2

1 Introduction

3

4

Egrave

5

6

7

8

Environment

Effect impact Low

EquitySocial

Effect impact High

Outcome Medium

Economy

Performance High

Governance

Performance Low

9

10

11

Projectconcept

Gover-nance

LevelData

availabilityId

entifi

catio

n of

cha

lleng

es

Tran

spar

ency

and

info

rmat

ion

Kno

wle

dg

e tr

ansf

er

Ben

chm

arki

ng a

nd p

olic

y ta

rget

se

ttin

g

Mo

nito

ring

pro

cess

tow

ard

su

stai

nab

ility

Gai

ning

com

pet

itive

ad

vant

ages

Cur

rent

sta

tus

of im

ple

men

tatio

n (e

g o

ngoi

ng t

rialle

d fo

r a

limite

d

per

iod

ava

ilab

le a

s p

relim

inar

y co

ncep

t o

nly)

Env

ironm

enta

l

So

cial

Eco

nom

ic

Pub

lic p

artic

ipat

ion

Con

sid

erin

g th

e in

stitu

tiona

l en

viro

nmen

t a

nd c

urre

nt e

ffo

rts

tow

ard

s su

stai

nab

ility

in t

rans

po

rt

Leve

l of t

rans

po

rt s

yste

m t

o

whi

ch t

he c

onc

ept

is a

pp

lied

Ava

ilab

ility

of i

ndic

ato

rs

on a

glo

bal

leve

l

Significant gaps

SLoCat Indicators

Significant gaps

Preliminary concept

Large gaps

Urban Large gaps

Significant gaps

Urban Sectoral

Large gaps

13

14

Implementation

15

MemberCountries

Forum (CSD)

Coordinatingagency

16

References

17

18

Quality Explanation

19

Level Urban

Year 2004ndash2006

Significant gaps

20

Level On all levels

Year 2010

Large gaps

21

22

Level Urban

Year 2003ndash2006

Significant gaps

23

24

Year 2010

Large gaps

25

Egrave

Level International

Year 1999

Some gaps

26

27

Level Urban

Year 1999ndash2004

Large gaps

28

Level Urban

Year 2000ndash2004

Large gaps

29

Level International

Year Since 2000

Status Ongoing

Significant gaps

30

Level International

Year Since 2001

Some gaps

31

Level National

Year 1997

Link na

Significant gaps

32

Level UrbanSectoral

Year 2002ndash2004

Average +- 10

Large gaps

18 882 05620 1227 060

6 1347 03913 1706 03812 2628 0315 2676 033

11 3028 0224 3157 0203 3473 0172 3475 0271 4316 0159 4902 014

14 4986 02216 5042 02310 5599 0138 5766 0187 6059 014

33

Level National

Year 2000ndash2002

Some gaps

34

Level Urban

Year 2010

unknown

35

Level Urban

Year 20092010

Status Ongoing

Large gaps

36

Level Sectoral

Year 2011

Large gaps

37

Abstract
1Introduction
  - References

Page 3: Sustainable Transport Evaluation · 2017-10-16 · 4 Sustainable Transport Evaluation – SUT Technical Document # 7 box 2 Key challenges in the transport sector Air pollution Transport

i

IMPRINT

Eschborn March 2011

Disclaimer

ii

Contents

Abstract 1

1 Introduction 2

References 16

1

Abstract

2

1 Introduction

3

4

Egrave

5

6

7

8

Environment

Effect impact Low

EquitySocial

Effect impact High

Outcome Medium

Economy

Performance High

Governance

Performance Low

9

10

11

Projectconcept

Gover-nance

LevelData

availabilityId

entifi

catio

n of

cha

lleng

es

Tran

spar

ency

and

info

rmat

ion

Kno

wle

dg

e tr

ansf

er

Ben

chm

arki

ng a

nd p

olic

y ta

rget

se

ttin

g

Mo

nito

ring

pro

cess

tow

ard

su

stai

nab

ility

Gai

ning

com

pet

itive

ad

vant

ages

Cur

rent

sta

tus

of im

ple

men

tatio

n (e

g o

ngoi

ng t

rialle

d fo

r a

limite

d

per

iod

ava

ilab

le a

s p

relim

inar

y co

ncep

t o

nly)

Env

ironm

enta

l

So

cial

Eco

nom

ic

Pub

lic p

artic

ipat

ion

Con

sid

erin

g th

e in

stitu

tiona

l en

viro

nmen

t a

nd c

urre

nt e

ffo

rts

tow

ard

s su

stai

nab

ility

in t

rans

po

rt

Leve

l of t

rans

po

rt s

yste

m t

o

whi

ch t

he c

onc

ept

is a

pp

lied

Ava

ilab

ility

of i

ndic

ato

rs

on a

glo

bal

leve

l

Significant gaps

SLoCat Indicators

Significant gaps

Preliminary concept

Large gaps

Urban Large gaps

Significant gaps

Urban Sectoral

Large gaps

13

14

Implementation

15

MemberCountries

Forum (CSD)

Coordinatingagency

16

References

17

18

Quality Explanation

19

Level Urban

Year 2004ndash2006

Significant gaps

20

Level On all levels

Year 2010

Large gaps

21

22

Level Urban

Year 2003ndash2006

Significant gaps

23

24

Year 2010

Large gaps

25

Egrave

Level International

Year 1999

Some gaps

26

27

Level Urban

Year 1999ndash2004

Large gaps

28

Level Urban

Year 2000ndash2004

Large gaps

29

Level International

Year Since 2000

Status Ongoing

Significant gaps

30

Level International

Year Since 2001

Some gaps

31

Level National

Year 1997

Link na

Significant gaps

32

Level UrbanSectoral

Year 2002ndash2004

Average +- 10

Large gaps

18 882 05620 1227 060

6 1347 03913 1706 03812 2628 0315 2676 033

11 3028 0224 3157 0203 3473 0172 3475 0271 4316 0159 4902 014

14 4986 02216 5042 02310 5599 0138 5766 0187 6059 014

33

Level National

Year 2000ndash2002

Some gaps

34

Level Urban

Year 2010

unknown

35

Level Urban

Year 20092010

Status Ongoing

Large gaps

36

Level Sectoral

Year 2011

Large gaps

37

Abstract
1Introduction
  - References

Page 4: Sustainable Transport Evaluation · 2017-10-16 · 4 Sustainable Transport Evaluation – SUT Technical Document # 7 box 2 Key challenges in the transport sector Air pollution Transport

ii

Contents

Abstract 1

1 Introduction 2

References 16

1

Abstract

2

1 Introduction

3

4

Egrave

5

6

7

8

Environment

Effect impact Low

EquitySocial

Effect impact High

Outcome Medium

Economy

Performance High

Governance

Performance Low

9

10

11

Projectconcept

Gover-nance

LevelData

availabilityId

entifi

catio

n of

cha

lleng

es

Tran

spar

ency

and

info

rmat

ion

Kno

wle

dg

e tr

ansf

er

Ben

chm

arki

ng a

nd p

olic

y ta

rget

se

ttin

g

Mo

nito

ring

pro

cess

tow

ard

su

stai

nab

ility

Gai

ning

com

pet

itive

ad

vant

ages

Cur

rent

sta

tus

of im

ple

men

tatio

n (e

g o

ngoi

ng t

rialle

d fo

r a

limite

d

per

iod

ava

ilab

le a

s p

relim

inar

y co

ncep

t o

nly)

Env

ironm

enta

l

So

cial

Eco

nom

ic

Pub

lic p

artic

ipat

ion

Con

sid

erin

g th

e in

stitu

tiona

l en

viro

nmen

t a

nd c

urre

nt e

ffo

rts

tow

ard

s su

stai

nab

ility

in t

rans

po

rt

Leve

l of t

rans

po

rt s

yste

m t

o

whi

ch t

he c

onc

ept

is a

pp

lied

Ava

ilab

ility

of i

ndic

ato

rs

on a

glo

bal

leve

l

Significant gaps

SLoCat Indicators

Significant gaps

Preliminary concept

Large gaps

Urban Large gaps

Significant gaps

Urban Sectoral

Large gaps

13

14

Implementation

15

MemberCountries

Forum (CSD)

Coordinatingagency

16

References

17

18

Quality Explanation

19

Level Urban

Year 2004ndash2006

Significant gaps

20

Level On all levels

Year 2010

Large gaps

21

22

Level Urban

Year 2003ndash2006

Significant gaps

23

24

Year 2010

Large gaps

25

Egrave

Level International

Year 1999

Some gaps

26

27

Level Urban

Year 1999ndash2004

Large gaps

28

Level Urban

Year 2000ndash2004

Large gaps

29

Level International

Year Since 2000

Status Ongoing

Significant gaps

30

Level International

Year Since 2001

Some gaps

31

Level National

Year 1997

Link na

Significant gaps

32

Level UrbanSectoral

Year 2002ndash2004

Average +- 10

Large gaps

18 882 05620 1227 060

6 1347 03913 1706 03812 2628 0315 2676 033

11 3028 0224 3157 0203 3473 0172 3475 0271 4316 0159 4902 014

14 4986 02216 5042 02310 5599 0138 5766 0187 6059 014

33

Level National

Year 2000ndash2002

Some gaps

34

Level Urban

Year 2010

unknown

35

Level Urban

Year 20092010

Status Ongoing

Large gaps

36

Level Sectoral

Year 2011

Large gaps

37

Abstract
1Introduction
  - References

Page 5: Sustainable Transport Evaluation · 2017-10-16 · 4 Sustainable Transport Evaluation – SUT Technical Document # 7 box 2 Key challenges in the transport sector Air pollution Transport

1

Abstract

2

1 Introduction

3

4

Egrave

5

6

7

8

Environment

Effect impact Low

EquitySocial

Effect impact High

Outcome Medium

Economy

Performance High

Governance

Performance Low

9

10

11

Projectconcept

Gover-nance

LevelData

availabilityId

entifi

catio

n of

cha

lleng

es

Tran

spar

ency

and

info

rmat

ion

Kno

wle

dg

e tr

ansf

er

Ben

chm

arki

ng a

nd p

olic

y ta

rget

se

ttin

g

Mo

nito

ring

pro

cess

tow

ard

su

stai

nab

ility

Gai

ning

com

pet

itive

ad

vant

ages

Cur

rent

sta

tus

of im

ple

men

tatio

n (e

g o

ngoi

ng t

rialle

d fo

r a

limite

d

per

iod

ava

ilab

le a

s p

relim

inar

y co

ncep

t o

nly)

Env

ironm

enta

l

So

cial

Eco

nom

ic

Pub

lic p

artic

ipat

ion

Con

sid

erin

g th

e in

stitu

tiona

l en

viro

nmen

t a

nd c

urre

nt e

ffo

rts

tow

ard

s su

stai

nab

ility

in t

rans

po

rt

Leve

l of t

rans

po

rt s

yste

m t

o

whi

ch t

he c

onc

ept

is a

pp

lied

Ava

ilab

ility

of i

ndic

ato

rs

on a

glo

bal

leve

l

Significant gaps

SLoCat Indicators

Significant gaps

Preliminary concept

Large gaps

Urban Large gaps

Significant gaps

Urban Sectoral

Large gaps

13

14

Implementation

15

MemberCountries

Forum (CSD)

Coordinatingagency

16

References

17

18

Quality Explanation

19

Level Urban

Year 2004ndash2006

Significant gaps

20

Level On all levels

Year 2010

Large gaps

21

22

Level Urban

Year 2003ndash2006

Significant gaps

23

24

Year 2010

Large gaps

25

Egrave

Level International

Year 1999

Some gaps

26

27

Level Urban

Year 1999ndash2004

Large gaps

28

Level Urban

Year 2000ndash2004

Large gaps

29

Level International

Year Since 2000

Status Ongoing

Significant gaps

30

Level International

Year Since 2001

Some gaps

31

Level National

Year 1997

Link na

Significant gaps

32

Level UrbanSectoral

Year 2002ndash2004

Average +- 10

Large gaps

18 882 05620 1227 060

6 1347 03913 1706 03812 2628 0315 2676 033

11 3028 0224 3157 0203 3473 0172 3475 0271 4316 0159 4902 014

14 4986 02216 5042 02310 5599 0138 5766 0187 6059 014

33

Level National

Year 2000ndash2002

Some gaps

34

Level Urban

Year 2010

unknown

35

Level Urban

Year 20092010

Status Ongoing

Large gaps

36

Level Sectoral

Year 2011

Large gaps

37

Abstract
1Introduction
  - References

Page 6: Sustainable Transport Evaluation · 2017-10-16 · 4 Sustainable Transport Evaluation – SUT Technical Document # 7 box 2 Key challenges in the transport sector Air pollution Transport

2

1 Introduction

3

4

Egrave

5

6

7

8

Environment

Effect impact Low

EquitySocial

Effect impact High

Outcome Medium

Economy

Performance High

Governance

Performance Low

9

10

11

Projectconcept

Gover-nance

LevelData

availabilityId

entifi

catio

n of

cha

lleng

es

Tran

spar

ency

and

info

rmat

ion

Kno

wle

dg

e tr

ansf

er

Ben

chm

arki

ng a

nd p

olic

y ta

rget

se

ttin

g

Mo

nito

ring

pro

cess

tow

ard

su

stai

nab

ility

Gai

ning

com

pet

itive

ad

vant

ages

Cur

rent

sta

tus

of im

ple

men

tatio

n (e

g o

ngoi

ng t

rialle

d fo

r a

limite

d

per

iod

ava

ilab

le a

s p

relim

inar

y co

ncep

t o

nly)

Env

ironm

enta

l

So

cial

Eco

nom

ic

Pub

lic p

artic

ipat

ion

Con

sid

erin

g th

e in

stitu

tiona

l en

viro

nmen

t a

nd c

urre

nt e

ffo

rts

tow

ard

s su

stai

nab

ility

in t

rans

po

rt

Leve

l of t

rans

po

rt s

yste

m t

o

whi

ch t

he c

onc

ept

is a

pp

lied

Ava

ilab

ility

of i

ndic

ato

rs

on a

glo

bal

leve

l

Significant gaps

SLoCat Indicators

Significant gaps

Preliminary concept

Large gaps

Urban Large gaps

Significant gaps

Urban Sectoral

Large gaps

13

14

Implementation

15

MemberCountries

Forum (CSD)

Coordinatingagency

16

References

17

18

Quality Explanation

19

Level Urban

Year 2004ndash2006

Significant gaps

20

Level On all levels

Year 2010

Large gaps

21

22

Level Urban

Year 2003ndash2006

Significant gaps

23

24

Year 2010

Large gaps

25

Egrave

Level International

Year 1999

Some gaps

26

27

Level Urban

Year 1999ndash2004

Large gaps

28

Level Urban

Year 2000ndash2004

Large gaps

29

Level International

Year Since 2000

Status Ongoing

Significant gaps

30

Level International

Year Since 2001

Some gaps

31

Level National

Year 1997

Link na

Significant gaps

32

Level UrbanSectoral

Year 2002ndash2004

Average +- 10

Large gaps

18 882 05620 1227 060

6 1347 03913 1706 03812 2628 0315 2676 033

11 3028 0224 3157 0203 3473 0172 3475 0271 4316 0159 4902 014

14 4986 02216 5042 02310 5599 0138 5766 0187 6059 014

33

Level National

Year 2000ndash2002

Some gaps

34

Level Urban

Year 2010

unknown

35

Level Urban

Year 20092010

Status Ongoing

Large gaps

36

Level Sectoral

Year 2011

Large gaps

37

Abstract
1Introduction
  - References

Page 7: Sustainable Transport Evaluation · 2017-10-16 · 4 Sustainable Transport Evaluation – SUT Technical Document # 7 box 2 Key challenges in the transport sector Air pollution Transport

3

4

Egrave

5

6

7

8

Environment

Effect impact Low

EquitySocial

Effect impact High

Outcome Medium

Economy

Performance High

Governance

Performance Low

9

10

11

Projectconcept

Gover-nance

LevelData

availabilityId

entifi

catio

n of

cha

lleng

es

Tran

spar

ency

and

info

rmat

ion

Kno

wle

dg

e tr

ansf

er

Ben

chm

arki

ng a

nd p

olic

y ta

rget

se

ttin

g

Mo

nito

ring

pro

cess

tow

ard

su

stai

nab

ility

Gai

ning

com

pet

itive

ad

vant

ages

Cur

rent

sta

tus

of im

ple

men

tatio

n (e

g o

ngoi

ng t

rialle

d fo

r a

limite

d

per

iod

ava

ilab

le a

s p

relim

inar

y co

ncep

t o

nly)

Env

ironm

enta

l

So

cial

Eco

nom

ic

Pub

lic p

artic

ipat

ion

Con

sid

erin

g th

e in

stitu

tiona

l en

viro

nmen

t a

nd c

urre

nt e

ffo

rts

tow

ard

s su

stai

nab

ility

in t

rans

po

rt

Leve

l of t

rans

po

rt s

yste

m t

o

whi

ch t

he c

onc

ept

is a

pp

lied

Ava

ilab

ility

of i

ndic

ato

rs

on a

glo

bal

leve

l

Significant gaps

SLoCat Indicators

Significant gaps

Preliminary concept

Large gaps

Urban Large gaps

Significant gaps

Urban Sectoral

Large gaps

13

14

Implementation

15

MemberCountries

Forum (CSD)

Coordinatingagency

16

References

17

18

Quality Explanation

19

Level Urban

Year 2004ndash2006

Significant gaps

20

Level On all levels

Year 2010

Large gaps

21

22

Level Urban

Year 2003ndash2006

Significant gaps

23

24

Year 2010

Large gaps

25

Egrave

Level International

Year 1999

Some gaps

26

27

Level Urban

Year 1999ndash2004

Large gaps

28

Level Urban

Year 2000ndash2004

Large gaps

29

Level International

Year Since 2000

Status Ongoing

Significant gaps

30

Level International

Year Since 2001

Some gaps

31

Level National

Year 1997

Link na

Significant gaps

32

Level UrbanSectoral

Year 2002ndash2004

Average +- 10

Large gaps

18 882 05620 1227 060

6 1347 03913 1706 03812 2628 0315 2676 033

11 3028 0224 3157 0203 3473 0172 3475 0271 4316 0159 4902 014

14 4986 02216 5042 02310 5599 0138 5766 0187 6059 014

33

Level National

Year 2000ndash2002

Some gaps

34

Level Urban

Year 2010

unknown

35

Level Urban

Year 20092010

Status Ongoing

Large gaps

36

Level Sectoral

Year 2011

Large gaps

37

Abstract
1Introduction
  - References

Page 8: Sustainable Transport Evaluation · 2017-10-16 · 4 Sustainable Transport Evaluation – SUT Technical Document # 7 box 2 Key challenges in the transport sector Air pollution Transport

4

Egrave

5

6

7

8

Environment

Effect impact Low

EquitySocial

Effect impact High

Outcome Medium

Economy

Performance High

Governance

Performance Low

9

10

11

Projectconcept

Gover-nance

LevelData

availabilityId

entifi

catio

n of

cha

lleng

es

Tran

spar

ency

and

info

rmat

ion

Kno

wle

dg

e tr

ansf

er

Ben

chm

arki

ng a

nd p

olic

y ta

rget

se

ttin

g

Mo

nito

ring

pro

cess

tow

ard

su

stai

nab

ility

Gai

ning

com

pet

itive

ad

vant

ages

Cur

rent

sta

tus

of im

ple

men

tatio

n (e

g o

ngoi

ng t

rialle

d fo

r a

limite

d

per

iod

ava

ilab

le a

s p

relim

inar

y co

ncep

t o

nly)

Env

ironm

enta

l

So

cial

Eco

nom

ic

Pub

lic p

artic

ipat

ion

Con

sid

erin

g th

e in

stitu

tiona

l en

viro

nmen

t a

nd c

urre

nt e

ffo

rts

tow

ard

s su

stai

nab

ility

in t

rans

po

rt

Leve

l of t

rans

po

rt s

yste

m t

o

whi

ch t

he c

onc

ept

is a

pp

lied

Ava

ilab

ility

of i

ndic

ato

rs

on a

glo

bal

leve

l

Significant gaps

SLoCat Indicators

Significant gaps

Preliminary concept

Large gaps

Urban Large gaps

Significant gaps

Urban Sectoral

Large gaps

13

14

Implementation

15

MemberCountries

Forum (CSD)

Coordinatingagency

16

References

17

18

Quality Explanation

19

Level Urban

Year 2004ndash2006

Significant gaps

20

Level On all levels

Year 2010

Large gaps

21

22

Level Urban

Year 2003ndash2006

Significant gaps

23

24

Year 2010

Large gaps

25

Egrave

Level International

Year 1999

Some gaps

26

27

Level Urban

Year 1999ndash2004

Large gaps

28

Level Urban

Year 2000ndash2004

Large gaps

29

Level International

Year Since 2000

Status Ongoing

Significant gaps

30

Level International

Year Since 2001

Some gaps

31

Level National

Year 1997

Link na

Significant gaps

32

Level UrbanSectoral

Year 2002ndash2004

Average +- 10

Large gaps

18 882 05620 1227 060

6 1347 03913 1706 03812 2628 0315 2676 033

11 3028 0224 3157 0203 3473 0172 3475 0271 4316 0159 4902 014

14 4986 02216 5042 02310 5599 0138 5766 0187 6059 014

33

Level National

Year 2000ndash2002

Some gaps

34

Level Urban

Year 2010

unknown

35

Level Urban

Year 20092010

Status Ongoing

Large gaps

36

Level Sectoral

Year 2011

Large gaps

37

Abstract
1Introduction
  - References

Page 9: Sustainable Transport Evaluation · 2017-10-16 · 4 Sustainable Transport Evaluation – SUT Technical Document # 7 box 2 Key challenges in the transport sector Air pollution Transport

5

6

7

8

Environment

Effect impact Low

EquitySocial

Effect impact High

Outcome Medium

Economy

Performance High

Governance

Performance Low

9

10

11

Projectconcept

Gover-nance

LevelData

availabilityId

entifi

catio

n of

cha

lleng

es

Tran

spar

ency

and

info

rmat

ion

Kno

wle

dg

e tr

ansf

er

Ben

chm

arki

ng a

nd p

olic

y ta

rget

se

ttin

g

Mo

nito

ring

pro

cess

tow

ard

su

stai

nab

ility

Gai

ning

com

pet

itive

ad

vant

ages

Cur

rent

sta

tus

of im

ple

men

tatio

n (e

g o

ngoi

ng t

rialle

d fo

r a

limite

d

per

iod

ava

ilab

le a

s p

relim

inar

y co

ncep

t o

nly)

Env

ironm

enta

l

So

cial

Eco

nom

ic

Pub

lic p

artic

ipat

ion

Con

sid

erin

g th

e in

stitu

tiona

l en

viro

nmen

t a

nd c

urre

nt e

ffo

rts

tow

ard

s su

stai

nab

ility

in t

rans

po

rt

Leve

l of t

rans

po

rt s

yste

m t

o

whi

ch t

he c

onc

ept

is a

pp

lied

Ava

ilab

ility

of i

ndic

ato

rs

on a

glo

bal

leve

l

Significant gaps

SLoCat Indicators

Significant gaps

Preliminary concept

Large gaps

Urban Large gaps

Significant gaps

Urban Sectoral

Large gaps

13

14

Implementation

15

MemberCountries

Forum (CSD)

Coordinatingagency

16

References

17

18

Quality Explanation

19

Level Urban

Year 2004ndash2006

Significant gaps

20

Level On all levels

Year 2010

Large gaps

21

22

Level Urban

Year 2003ndash2006

Significant gaps

23

24

Year 2010

Large gaps

25

Egrave

Level International

Year 1999

Some gaps

26

27

Level Urban

Year 1999ndash2004

Large gaps

28

Level Urban

Year 2000ndash2004

Large gaps

29

Level International

Year Since 2000

Status Ongoing

Significant gaps

30

Level International

Year Since 2001

Some gaps

31

Level National

Year 1997

Link na

Significant gaps

32

Level UrbanSectoral

Year 2002ndash2004

Average +- 10

Large gaps

18 882 05620 1227 060

6 1347 03913 1706 03812 2628 0315 2676 033

11 3028 0224 3157 0203 3473 0172 3475 0271 4316 0159 4902 014

14 4986 02216 5042 02310 5599 0138 5766 0187 6059 014

33

Level National

Year 2000ndash2002

Some gaps

34

Level Urban

Year 2010

unknown

35

Level Urban

Year 20092010

Status Ongoing

Large gaps

36

Level Sectoral

Year 2011

Large gaps

37

Abstract
1Introduction
  - References

Page 10: Sustainable Transport Evaluation · 2017-10-16 · 4 Sustainable Transport Evaluation – SUT Technical Document # 7 box 2 Key challenges in the transport sector Air pollution Transport

6

7

8

Environment

Effect impact Low

EquitySocial

Effect impact High

Outcome Medium

Economy

Performance High

Governance

Performance Low

9

10

11

Projectconcept

Gover-nance

LevelData

availabilityId

entifi

catio

n of

cha

lleng

es

Tran

spar

ency

and

info

rmat

ion

Kno

wle

dg

e tr

ansf

er

Ben

chm

arki

ng a

nd p

olic

y ta

rget

se

ttin

g

Mo

nito

ring

pro

cess

tow

ard

su

stai

nab

ility

Gai

ning

com

pet

itive

ad

vant

ages

Cur

rent

sta

tus

of im

ple

men

tatio

n (e

g o

ngoi

ng t

rialle

d fo

r a

limite

d

per

iod

ava

ilab

le a

s p

relim

inar

y co

ncep

t o

nly)

Env

ironm

enta

l

So

cial

Eco

nom

ic

Pub

lic p

artic

ipat

ion

Con

sid

erin

g th

e in

stitu

tiona

l en

viro

nmen

t a

nd c

urre

nt e

ffo

rts

tow

ard

s su

stai

nab

ility

in t

rans

po

rt

Leve

l of t

rans

po

rt s

yste

m t

o

whi

ch t

he c

onc

ept

is a

pp

lied

Ava

ilab

ility

of i

ndic

ato

rs

on a

glo

bal

leve

l

Significant gaps

SLoCat Indicators

Significant gaps

Preliminary concept

Large gaps

Urban Large gaps

Significant gaps

Urban Sectoral

Large gaps

13

14

Implementation

15

MemberCountries

Forum (CSD)

Coordinatingagency

16

References

17

18

Quality Explanation

19

Level Urban

Year 2004ndash2006

Significant gaps

20

Level On all levels

Year 2010

Large gaps

21

22

Level Urban

Year 2003ndash2006

Significant gaps

23

24

Year 2010

Large gaps

25

Egrave

Level International

Year 1999

Some gaps

26

27

Level Urban

Year 1999ndash2004

Large gaps

28

Level Urban

Year 2000ndash2004

Large gaps

29

Level International

Year Since 2000

Status Ongoing

Significant gaps

30

Level International

Year Since 2001

Some gaps

31

Level National

Year 1997

Link na

Significant gaps

32

Level UrbanSectoral

Year 2002ndash2004

Average +- 10

Large gaps

18 882 05620 1227 060

6 1347 03913 1706 03812 2628 0315 2676 033

11 3028 0224 3157 0203 3473 0172 3475 0271 4316 0159 4902 014

14 4986 02216 5042 02310 5599 0138 5766 0187 6059 014

33

Level National

Year 2000ndash2002

Some gaps

34

Level Urban

Year 2010

unknown

35

Level Urban

Year 20092010

Status Ongoing

Large gaps

36

Level Sectoral

Year 2011

Large gaps

37

Abstract
1Introduction
  - References

Page 11: Sustainable Transport Evaluation · 2017-10-16 · 4 Sustainable Transport Evaluation – SUT Technical Document # 7 box 2 Key challenges in the transport sector Air pollution Transport

7

8

Environment

Effect impact Low

EquitySocial

Effect impact High

Outcome Medium

Economy

Performance High

Governance

Performance Low

9

10

11

Projectconcept

Gover-nance

LevelData

availabilityId

entifi

catio

n of

cha

lleng

es

Tran

spar

ency

and

info

rmat

ion

Kno

wle

dg

e tr

ansf

er

Ben

chm

arki

ng a

nd p

olic

y ta

rget

se

ttin

g

Mo

nito

ring

pro

cess

tow

ard

su

stai

nab

ility

Gai

ning

com

pet

itive

ad

vant

ages

Cur

rent

sta

tus

of im

ple

men

tatio

n (e

g o

ngoi

ng t

rialle

d fo

r a

limite

d

per

iod

ava

ilab

le a

s p

relim

inar

y co

ncep

t o

nly)

Env

ironm

enta

l

So

cial

Eco

nom

ic

Pub

lic p

artic

ipat

ion

Con

sid

erin

g th

e in

stitu

tiona

l en

viro

nmen

t a

nd c

urre

nt e

ffo

rts

tow

ard

s su

stai

nab

ility

in t

rans

po

rt

Leve

l of t

rans

po

rt s

yste

m t

o

whi

ch t

he c

onc

ept

is a

pp

lied

Ava

ilab

ility

of i

ndic

ato

rs

on a

glo

bal

leve

l

Significant gaps

SLoCat Indicators

Significant gaps

Preliminary concept

Large gaps

Urban Large gaps

Significant gaps

Urban Sectoral

Large gaps

13

14

Implementation

15

MemberCountries

Forum (CSD)

Coordinatingagency

16

References

17

18

Quality Explanation

19

Level Urban

Year 2004ndash2006

Significant gaps

20

Level On all levels

Year 2010

Large gaps

21

22

Level Urban

Year 2003ndash2006

Significant gaps

23

24

Year 2010

Large gaps

25

Egrave

Level International

Year 1999

Some gaps

26

27

Level Urban

Year 1999ndash2004

Large gaps

28

Level Urban

Year 2000ndash2004

Large gaps

29

Level International

Year Since 2000

Status Ongoing

Significant gaps

30

Level International

Year Since 2001

Some gaps

31

Level National

Year 1997

Link na

Significant gaps

32

Level UrbanSectoral

Year 2002ndash2004

Average +- 10

Large gaps

18 882 05620 1227 060

6 1347 03913 1706 03812 2628 0315 2676 033

11 3028 0224 3157 0203 3473 0172 3475 0271 4316 0159 4902 014

14 4986 02216 5042 02310 5599 0138 5766 0187 6059 014

33

Level National

Year 2000ndash2002

Some gaps

34

Level Urban

Year 2010

unknown

35

Level Urban

Year 20092010

Status Ongoing

Large gaps

36

Level Sectoral

Year 2011

Large gaps

37

Abstract
1Introduction
  - References

Page 12: Sustainable Transport Evaluation · 2017-10-16 · 4 Sustainable Transport Evaluation – SUT Technical Document # 7 box 2 Key challenges in the transport sector Air pollution Transport

8

Environment

Effect impact Low

EquitySocial

Effect impact High

Outcome Medium

Economy

Performance High

Governance

Performance Low

9

10

11

Projectconcept

Gover-nance

LevelData

availabilityId

entifi

catio

n of

cha

lleng

es

Tran

spar

ency

and

info

rmat

ion

Kno

wle

dg

e tr

ansf

er

Ben

chm

arki

ng a

nd p

olic

y ta

rget

se

ttin

g

Mo

nito

ring

pro

cess

tow

ard

su

stai

nab

ility

Gai

ning

com

pet

itive

ad

vant

ages

Cur

rent

sta

tus

of im

ple

men

tatio

n (e

g o

ngoi

ng t

rialle

d fo

r a

limite

d

per

iod

ava

ilab

le a

s p

relim

inar

y co

ncep

t o

nly)

Env

ironm

enta

l

So

cial

Eco

nom

ic

Pub

lic p

artic

ipat

ion

Con

sid

erin

g th

e in

stitu

tiona

l en

viro

nmen

t a

nd c

urre

nt e

ffo

rts

tow

ard

s su

stai

nab

ility

in t

rans

po

rt

Leve

l of t

rans

po

rt s

yste

m t

o

whi

ch t

he c

onc

ept

is a

pp

lied

Ava

ilab

ility

of i

ndic

ato

rs

on a

glo

bal

leve

l

Significant gaps

SLoCat Indicators

Significant gaps

Preliminary concept

Large gaps

Urban Large gaps

Significant gaps

Urban Sectoral

Large gaps

13

14

Implementation

15

MemberCountries

Forum (CSD)

Coordinatingagency

16

References

17

18

Quality Explanation

19

Level Urban

Year 2004ndash2006

Significant gaps

20

Level On all levels

Year 2010

Large gaps

21

22

Level Urban

Year 2003ndash2006

Significant gaps

23

24

Year 2010

Large gaps

25

Egrave

Level International

Year 1999

Some gaps

26

27

Level Urban

Year 1999ndash2004

Large gaps

28

Level Urban

Year 2000ndash2004

Large gaps

29

Level International

Year Since 2000

Status Ongoing

Significant gaps

30

Level International

Year Since 2001

Some gaps

31

Level National

Year 1997

Link na

Significant gaps

32

Level UrbanSectoral

Year 2002ndash2004

Average +- 10

Large gaps

18 882 05620 1227 060

6 1347 03913 1706 03812 2628 0315 2676 033

11 3028 0224 3157 0203 3473 0172 3475 0271 4316 0159 4902 014

14 4986 02216 5042 02310 5599 0138 5766 0187 6059 014

33

Level National

Year 2000ndash2002

Some gaps

34

Level Urban

Year 2010

unknown

35

Level Urban

Year 20092010

Status Ongoing

Large gaps

36

Level Sectoral

Year 2011

Large gaps

37

Abstract
1Introduction
  - References

Page 13: Sustainable Transport Evaluation · 2017-10-16 · 4 Sustainable Transport Evaluation – SUT Technical Document # 7 box 2 Key challenges in the transport sector Air pollution Transport

9

10

11

Projectconcept

Gover-nance

LevelData

availabilityId

entifi

catio

n of

cha

lleng

es

Tran

spar

ency

and

info

rmat

ion

Kno

wle

dg

e tr

ansf

er

Ben

chm

arki

ng a

nd p

olic

y ta

rget

se

ttin

g

Mo

nito

ring

pro

cess

tow

ard

su

stai

nab

ility

Gai

ning

com

pet

itive

ad

vant

ages

Cur

rent

sta

tus

of im

ple

men

tatio

n (e

g o

ngoi

ng t

rialle

d fo

r a

limite

d

per

iod

ava

ilab

le a

s p

relim

inar

y co

ncep

t o

nly)

Env

ironm

enta

l

So

cial

Eco

nom

ic

Pub

lic p

artic

ipat

ion

Con

sid

erin

g th

e in

stitu

tiona

l en

viro

nmen

t a

nd c

urre

nt e

ffo

rts

tow

ard

s su

stai

nab

ility

in t

rans

po

rt

Leve

l of t

rans

po

rt s

yste

m t

o

whi

ch t

he c

onc

ept

is a

pp

lied

Ava

ilab

ility

of i

ndic

ato

rs

on a

glo

bal

leve

l

Significant gaps

SLoCat Indicators

Significant gaps

Preliminary concept

Large gaps

Urban Large gaps

Significant gaps

Urban Sectoral

Large gaps

13

14

Implementation

15

MemberCountries

Forum (CSD)

Coordinatingagency

16

References

17

18

Quality Explanation

19

Level Urban

Year 2004ndash2006

Significant gaps

20

Level On all levels

Year 2010

Large gaps

21

22

Level Urban

Year 2003ndash2006

Significant gaps

23

24

Year 2010

Large gaps

25

Egrave

Level International

Year 1999

Some gaps

26

27

Level Urban

Year 1999ndash2004

Large gaps

28

Level Urban

Year 2000ndash2004

Large gaps

29

Level International

Year Since 2000

Status Ongoing

Significant gaps

30

Level International

Year Since 2001

Some gaps

31

Level National

Year 1997

Link na

Significant gaps

32

Level UrbanSectoral

Year 2002ndash2004

Average +- 10

Large gaps

18 882 05620 1227 060

6 1347 03913 1706 03812 2628 0315 2676 033

11 3028 0224 3157 0203 3473 0172 3475 0271 4316 0159 4902 014

14 4986 02216 5042 02310 5599 0138 5766 0187 6059 014

33

Level National

Year 2000ndash2002

Some gaps

34

Level Urban

Year 2010

unknown

35

Level Urban

Year 20092010

Status Ongoing

Large gaps

36

Level Sectoral

Year 2011

Large gaps

37

Abstract
1Introduction
  - References

Page 14: Sustainable Transport Evaluation · 2017-10-16 · 4 Sustainable Transport Evaluation – SUT Technical Document # 7 box 2 Key challenges in the transport sector Air pollution Transport

10

11

Projectconcept

Gover-nance

LevelData

availabilityId

entifi

catio

n of

cha

lleng

es

Tran

spar

ency

and

info

rmat

ion

Kno

wle

dg

e tr

ansf

er

Ben

chm

arki

ng a

nd p

olic

y ta

rget

se

ttin

g

Mo

nito

ring

pro

cess

tow

ard

su

stai

nab

ility

Gai

ning

com

pet

itive

ad

vant

ages

Cur

rent

sta

tus

of im

ple

men

tatio

n (e

g o

ngoi

ng t

rialle

d fo

r a

limite

d

per

iod

ava

ilab

le a

s p

relim

inar

y co

ncep

t o

nly)

Env

ironm

enta

l

So

cial

Eco

nom

ic

Pub

lic p

artic

ipat

ion

Con

sid

erin

g th

e in

stitu

tiona

l en

viro

nmen

t a

nd c

urre

nt e

ffo

rts

tow

ard

s su

stai

nab

ility

in t

rans

po

rt

Leve

l of t

rans

po

rt s

yste

m t

o

whi

ch t

he c

onc

ept

is a

pp

lied

Ava

ilab

ility

of i

ndic

ato

rs

on a

glo

bal

leve

l

Significant gaps

SLoCat Indicators

Significant gaps

Preliminary concept

Large gaps

Urban Large gaps

Significant gaps

Urban Sectoral

Large gaps

13

14

Implementation

15

MemberCountries

Forum (CSD)

Coordinatingagency

16

References

17

18

Quality Explanation

19

Level Urban

Year 2004ndash2006

Significant gaps

20

Level On all levels

Year 2010

Large gaps

21

22

Level Urban

Year 2003ndash2006

Significant gaps

23

24

Year 2010

Large gaps

25

Egrave

Level International

Year 1999

Some gaps

26

27

Level Urban

Year 1999ndash2004

Large gaps

28

Level Urban

Year 2000ndash2004

Large gaps

29

Level International

Year Since 2000

Status Ongoing

Significant gaps

30

Level International

Year Since 2001

Some gaps

31

Level National

Year 1997

Link na

Significant gaps

32

Level UrbanSectoral

Year 2002ndash2004

Average +- 10

Large gaps

18 882 05620 1227 060

6 1347 03913 1706 03812 2628 0315 2676 033

11 3028 0224 3157 0203 3473 0172 3475 0271 4316 0159 4902 014

14 4986 02216 5042 02310 5599 0138 5766 0187 6059 014

33

Level National

Year 2000ndash2002

Some gaps

34

Level Urban

Year 2010

unknown

35

Level Urban

Year 20092010

Status Ongoing

Large gaps

36

Level Sectoral

Year 2011

Large gaps

37

Abstract
1Introduction
  - References

Page 15: Sustainable Transport Evaluation · 2017-10-16 · 4 Sustainable Transport Evaluation – SUT Technical Document # 7 box 2 Key challenges in the transport sector Air pollution Transport

11

Projectconcept

Gover-nance

LevelData

availabilityId

entifi

catio

n of

cha

lleng

es

Tran

spar

ency

and

info

rmat

ion

Kno

wle

dg

e tr

ansf

er

Ben

chm

arki

ng a

nd p

olic

y ta

rget

se

ttin

g

Mo

nito

ring

pro

cess

tow

ard

su

stai

nab

ility

Gai

ning

com

pet

itive

ad

vant

ages

Cur

rent

sta

tus

of im

ple

men

tatio

n (e

g o

ngoi

ng t

rialle

d fo

r a

limite

d

per

iod

ava

ilab

le a

s p

relim

inar

y co

ncep

t o

nly)

Env

ironm

enta

l

So

cial

Eco

nom

ic

Pub

lic p

artic

ipat

ion

Con

sid

erin

g th

e in

stitu

tiona

l en

viro

nmen

t a

nd c

urre

nt e

ffo

rts

tow

ard

s su

stai

nab

ility

in t

rans

po

rt

Leve

l of t

rans

po

rt s

yste

m t

o

whi

ch t

he c

onc

ept

is a

pp

lied

Ava

ilab

ility

of i

ndic

ato

rs

on a

glo

bal

leve

l

Significant gaps

SLoCat Indicators

Significant gaps

Preliminary concept

Large gaps

Urban Large gaps

Significant gaps

Urban Sectoral

Large gaps

13

14

Implementation

15

MemberCountries

Forum (CSD)

Coordinatingagency

16

References

17

18

Quality Explanation

19

Level Urban

Year 2004ndash2006

Significant gaps

20

Level On all levels

Year 2010

Large gaps

21

22

Level Urban

Year 2003ndash2006

Significant gaps

23

24

Year 2010

Large gaps

25

Egrave

Level International

Year 1999

Some gaps

26

27

Level Urban

Year 1999ndash2004

Large gaps

28

Level Urban

Year 2000ndash2004

Large gaps

29

Level International

Year Since 2000

Status Ongoing

Significant gaps

30

Level International

Year Since 2001

Some gaps

31

Level National

Year 1997

Link na

Significant gaps

32

Level UrbanSectoral

Year 2002ndash2004

Average +- 10

Large gaps

18 882 05620 1227 060

6 1347 03913 1706 03812 2628 0315 2676 033

11 3028 0224 3157 0203 3473 0172 3475 0271 4316 0159 4902 014

14 4986 02216 5042 02310 5599 0138 5766 0187 6059 014

33

Level National

Year 2000ndash2002

Some gaps

34

Level Urban

Year 2010

unknown

35

Level Urban

Year 20092010

Status Ongoing

Large gaps

36

Level Sectoral

Year 2011

Large gaps

37

Abstract
1Introduction
  - References

Page 16: Sustainable Transport Evaluation · 2017-10-16 · 4 Sustainable Transport Evaluation – SUT Technical Document # 7 box 2 Key challenges in the transport sector Air pollution Transport

Projectconcept

Gover-nance

LevelData

availabilityId

entifi

catio

n of

cha

lleng

es

Tran

spar

ency

and

info

rmat

ion

Kno

wle

dg

e tr

ansf

er

Ben

chm

arki

ng a

nd p

olic

y ta

rget

se

ttin

g

Mo

nito

ring

pro

cess

tow

ard

su

stai

nab

ility

Gai

ning

com

pet

itive

ad

vant

ages

Cur

rent

sta

tus

of im

ple

men

tatio

n (e

g o

ngoi

ng t

rialle

d fo

r a

limite

d

per

iod

ava

ilab

le a

s p

relim

inar

y co

ncep

t o

nly)

Env

ironm

enta

l

So

cial

Eco

nom

ic

Pub

lic p

artic

ipat

ion

Con

sid

erin

g th

e in

stitu

tiona

l en

viro

nmen

t a

nd c

urre

nt e

ffo

rts

tow

ard

s su

stai

nab

ility

in t

rans

po

rt

Leve

l of t

rans

po

rt s

yste

m t

o

whi

ch t

he c

onc

ept

is a

pp

lied

Ava

ilab

ility

of i

ndic

ato

rs

on a

glo

bal

leve

l

Significant gaps

SLoCat Indicators

Significant gaps

Preliminary concept

Large gaps

Urban Large gaps

Significant gaps

Urban Sectoral

Large gaps

13

14

Implementation

15

MemberCountries

Forum (CSD)

Coordinatingagency

16

References

17

18

Quality Explanation

19

Level Urban

Year 2004ndash2006

Significant gaps

20

Level On all levels

Year 2010

Large gaps

21

22

Level Urban

Year 2003ndash2006

Significant gaps

23

24

Year 2010

Large gaps

25

Egrave

Level International

Year 1999

Some gaps

26

27

Level Urban

Year 1999ndash2004

Large gaps

28

Level Urban

Year 2000ndash2004

Large gaps

29

Level International

Year Since 2000

Status Ongoing

Significant gaps

30

Level International

Year Since 2001

Some gaps

31

Level National

Year 1997

Link na

Significant gaps

32

Level UrbanSectoral

Year 2002ndash2004

Average +- 10

Large gaps

18 882 05620 1227 060

6 1347 03913 1706 03812 2628 0315 2676 033

11 3028 0224 3157 0203 3473 0172 3475 0271 4316 0159 4902 014

14 4986 02216 5042 02310 5599 0138 5766 0187 6059 014

33

Level National

Year 2000ndash2002

Some gaps

34

Level Urban

Year 2010

unknown

35

Level Urban

Year 20092010

Status Ongoing

Large gaps

36

Level Sectoral

Year 2011

Large gaps

37

Abstract
1Introduction
  - References

Page 17: Sustainable Transport Evaluation · 2017-10-16 · 4 Sustainable Transport Evaluation – SUT Technical Document # 7 box 2 Key challenges in the transport sector Air pollution Transport

13

14

Implementation

15

MemberCountries

Forum (CSD)

Coordinatingagency

16

References

17

18

Quality Explanation

19

Level Urban

Year 2004ndash2006

Significant gaps

20

Level On all levels

Year 2010

Large gaps

21

22

Level Urban

Year 2003ndash2006

Significant gaps

23

24

Year 2010

Large gaps

25

Egrave

Level International

Year 1999

Some gaps

26

27

Level Urban

Year 1999ndash2004

Large gaps

28

Level Urban

Year 2000ndash2004

Large gaps

29

Level International

Year Since 2000

Status Ongoing

Significant gaps

30

Level International

Year Since 2001

Some gaps

31

Level National

Year 1997

Link na

Significant gaps

32

Level UrbanSectoral

Year 2002ndash2004

Average +- 10

Large gaps

18 882 05620 1227 060

6 1347 03913 1706 03812 2628 0315 2676 033

11 3028 0224 3157 0203 3473 0172 3475 0271 4316 0159 4902 014

14 4986 02216 5042 02310 5599 0138 5766 0187 6059 014

33

Level National

Year 2000ndash2002

Some gaps

34

Level Urban

Year 2010

unknown

35

Level Urban

Year 20092010

Status Ongoing

Large gaps

36

Level Sectoral

Year 2011

Large gaps

37

Abstract
1Introduction
  - References

Page 18: Sustainable Transport Evaluation · 2017-10-16 · 4 Sustainable Transport Evaluation – SUT Technical Document # 7 box 2 Key challenges in the transport sector Air pollution Transport

14

Implementation

15

MemberCountries

Forum (CSD)

Coordinatingagency

16

References

17

18

Quality Explanation

19

Level Urban

Year 2004ndash2006

Significant gaps

20

Level On all levels

Year 2010

Large gaps

21

22

Level Urban

Year 2003ndash2006

Significant gaps

23

24

Year 2010

Large gaps

25

Egrave

Level International

Year 1999

Some gaps

26

27

Level Urban

Year 1999ndash2004

Large gaps

28

Level Urban

Year 2000ndash2004

Large gaps

29

Level International

Year Since 2000

Status Ongoing

Significant gaps

30

Level International

Year Since 2001

Some gaps

31

Level National

Year 1997

Link na

Significant gaps

32

Level UrbanSectoral

Year 2002ndash2004

Average +- 10

Large gaps

18 882 05620 1227 060

6 1347 03913 1706 03812 2628 0315 2676 033

11 3028 0224 3157 0203 3473 0172 3475 0271 4316 0159 4902 014

14 4986 02216 5042 02310 5599 0138 5766 0187 6059 014

33

Level National

Year 2000ndash2002

Some gaps

34

Level Urban

Year 2010

unknown

35

Level Urban

Year 20092010

Status Ongoing

Large gaps

36

Level Sectoral

Year 2011

Large gaps

37

Abstract
1Introduction
  - References

Page 19: Sustainable Transport Evaluation · 2017-10-16 · 4 Sustainable Transport Evaluation – SUT Technical Document # 7 box 2 Key challenges in the transport sector Air pollution Transport

15

MemberCountries

Forum (CSD)

Coordinatingagency

16

References

17

18

Quality Explanation

19

Level Urban

Year 2004ndash2006

Significant gaps

20

Level On all levels

Year 2010

Large gaps

21

22

Level Urban

Year 2003ndash2006

Significant gaps

23

24

Year 2010

Large gaps

25

Egrave

Level International

Year 1999

Some gaps

26

27

Level Urban

Year 1999ndash2004

Large gaps

28

Level Urban

Year 2000ndash2004

Large gaps

29

Level International

Year Since 2000

Status Ongoing

Significant gaps

30

Level International

Year Since 2001

Some gaps

31

Level National

Year 1997

Link na

Significant gaps

32

Level UrbanSectoral

Year 2002ndash2004

Average +- 10

Large gaps

18 882 05620 1227 060

6 1347 03913 1706 03812 2628 0315 2676 033

11 3028 0224 3157 0203 3473 0172 3475 0271 4316 0159 4902 014

14 4986 02216 5042 02310 5599 0138 5766 0187 6059 014

33

Level National

Year 2000ndash2002

Some gaps

34

Level Urban

Year 2010

unknown

35

Level Urban

Year 20092010

Status Ongoing

Large gaps

36

Level Sectoral

Year 2011

Large gaps

37

Abstract
1Introduction
  - References

Page 20: Sustainable Transport Evaluation · 2017-10-16 · 4 Sustainable Transport Evaluation – SUT Technical Document # 7 box 2 Key challenges in the transport sector Air pollution Transport

16

References

17

18

Quality Explanation

19

Level Urban

Year 2004ndash2006

Significant gaps

20

Level On all levels

Year 2010

Large gaps

21

22

Level Urban

Year 2003ndash2006

Significant gaps

23

24

Year 2010

Large gaps

25

Egrave

Level International

Year 1999

Some gaps

26

27

Level Urban

Year 1999ndash2004

Large gaps

28

Level Urban

Year 2000ndash2004

Large gaps

29

Level International

Year Since 2000

Status Ongoing

Significant gaps

30

Level International

Year Since 2001

Some gaps

31

Level National

Year 1997

Link na

Significant gaps

32

Level UrbanSectoral

Year 2002ndash2004

Average +- 10

Large gaps

18 882 05620 1227 060

6 1347 03913 1706 03812 2628 0315 2676 033

11 3028 0224 3157 0203 3473 0172 3475 0271 4316 0159 4902 014

14 4986 02216 5042 02310 5599 0138 5766 0187 6059 014

33

Level National

Year 2000ndash2002

Some gaps

34

Level Urban

Year 2010

unknown

35

Level Urban

Year 20092010

Status Ongoing

Large gaps

36

Level Sectoral

Year 2011

Large gaps

37

Abstract
1Introduction
  - References

Page 21: Sustainable Transport Evaluation · 2017-10-16 · 4 Sustainable Transport Evaluation – SUT Technical Document # 7 box 2 Key challenges in the transport sector Air pollution Transport

17

18

Quality Explanation

19

Level Urban

Year 2004ndash2006

Significant gaps

20

Level On all levels

Year 2010

Large gaps

21

22

Level Urban

Year 2003ndash2006

Significant gaps

23

24

Year 2010

Large gaps

25

Egrave

Level International

Year 1999

Some gaps

26

27

Level Urban

Year 1999ndash2004

Large gaps

28

Level Urban

Year 2000ndash2004

Large gaps

29

Level International

Year Since 2000

Status Ongoing

Significant gaps

30

Level International

Year Since 2001

Some gaps

31

Level National

Year 1997

Link na

Significant gaps

32

Level UrbanSectoral

Year 2002ndash2004

Average +- 10

Large gaps

18 882 05620 1227 060

6 1347 03913 1706 03812 2628 0315 2676 033

11 3028 0224 3157 0203 3473 0172 3475 0271 4316 0159 4902 014

14 4986 02216 5042 02310 5599 0138 5766 0187 6059 014

33

Level National

Year 2000ndash2002

Some gaps

34

Level Urban

Year 2010

unknown

35

Level Urban

Year 20092010

Status Ongoing

Large gaps

36

Level Sectoral

Year 2011

Large gaps

37

Abstract
1Introduction
  - References

Page 22: Sustainable Transport Evaluation · 2017-10-16 · 4 Sustainable Transport Evaluation – SUT Technical Document # 7 box 2 Key challenges in the transport sector Air pollution Transport

18

Quality Explanation

19

Level Urban

Year 2004ndash2006

Significant gaps

20

Level On all levels

Year 2010

Large gaps

21

22

Level Urban

Year 2003ndash2006

Significant gaps

23

24

Year 2010

Large gaps

25

Egrave

Level International

Year 1999

Some gaps

26

27

Level Urban

Year 1999ndash2004

Large gaps

28

Level Urban

Year 2000ndash2004

Large gaps

29

Level International

Year Since 2000

Status Ongoing

Significant gaps

30

Level International

Year Since 2001

Some gaps

31

Level National

Year 1997

Link na

Significant gaps

32

Level UrbanSectoral

Year 2002ndash2004

Average +- 10

Large gaps

18 882 05620 1227 060

6 1347 03913 1706 03812 2628 0315 2676 033

11 3028 0224 3157 0203 3473 0172 3475 0271 4316 0159 4902 014

14 4986 02216 5042 02310 5599 0138 5766 0187 6059 014

33

Level National

Year 2000ndash2002

Some gaps

34

Level Urban

Year 2010

unknown

35

Level Urban

Year 20092010

Status Ongoing

Large gaps

36

Level Sectoral

Year 2011

Large gaps

37

Abstract
1Introduction
  - References

Page 23: Sustainable Transport Evaluation · 2017-10-16 · 4 Sustainable Transport Evaluation – SUT Technical Document # 7 box 2 Key challenges in the transport sector Air pollution Transport

19

Level Urban

Year 2004ndash2006

Significant gaps

20

Level On all levels

Year 2010

Large gaps

21

22

Level Urban

Year 2003ndash2006

Significant gaps

23

24

Year 2010

Large gaps

25

Egrave

Level International

Year 1999

Some gaps

26

27

Level Urban

Year 1999ndash2004

Large gaps

28

Level Urban

Year 2000ndash2004

Large gaps

29

Level International

Year Since 2000

Status Ongoing

Significant gaps

30

Level International

Year Since 2001

Some gaps

31

Level National

Year 1997

Link na

Significant gaps

32

Level UrbanSectoral

Year 2002ndash2004

Average +- 10

Large gaps

18 882 05620 1227 060

6 1347 03913 1706 03812 2628 0315 2676 033

11 3028 0224 3157 0203 3473 0172 3475 0271 4316 0159 4902 014

14 4986 02216 5042 02310 5599 0138 5766 0187 6059 014

33

Level National

Year 2000ndash2002

Some gaps

34

Level Urban

Year 2010

unknown

35

Level Urban

Year 20092010

Status Ongoing

Large gaps

36

Level Sectoral

Year 2011

Large gaps

37

Abstract
1Introduction
  - References

Page 24: Sustainable Transport Evaluation · 2017-10-16 · 4 Sustainable Transport Evaluation – SUT Technical Document # 7 box 2 Key challenges in the transport sector Air pollution Transport

20

Level On all levels

Year 2010

Large gaps

21

22

Level Urban

Year 2003ndash2006

Significant gaps

23

24

Year 2010

Large gaps

25

Egrave

Level International

Year 1999

Some gaps

26

27

Level Urban

Year 1999ndash2004

Large gaps

28

Level Urban

Year 2000ndash2004

Large gaps

29

Level International

Year Since 2000

Status Ongoing

Significant gaps

30

Level International

Year Since 2001

Some gaps

31

Level National

Year 1997

Link na

Significant gaps

32

Level UrbanSectoral

Year 2002ndash2004

Average +- 10

Large gaps

18 882 05620 1227 060

6 1347 03913 1706 03812 2628 0315 2676 033

11 3028 0224 3157 0203 3473 0172 3475 0271 4316 0159 4902 014

14 4986 02216 5042 02310 5599 0138 5766 0187 6059 014

33

Level National

Year 2000ndash2002

Some gaps

34

Level Urban

Year 2010

unknown

35

Level Urban

Year 20092010

Status Ongoing

Large gaps

36

Level Sectoral

Year 2011

Large gaps

37

Abstract
1Introduction
  - References

Page 25: Sustainable Transport Evaluation · 2017-10-16 · 4 Sustainable Transport Evaluation – SUT Technical Document # 7 box 2 Key challenges in the transport sector Air pollution Transport

21

22

Level Urban

Year 2003ndash2006

Significant gaps

23

24

Year 2010

Large gaps

25

Egrave

Level International

Year 1999

Some gaps

26

27

Level Urban

Year 1999ndash2004

Large gaps

28

Level Urban

Year 2000ndash2004

Large gaps

29

Level International

Year Since 2000

Status Ongoing

Significant gaps

30

Level International

Year Since 2001

Some gaps

31

Level National

Year 1997

Link na

Significant gaps

32

Level UrbanSectoral

Year 2002ndash2004

Average +- 10

Large gaps

18 882 05620 1227 060

6 1347 03913 1706 03812 2628 0315 2676 033

11 3028 0224 3157 0203 3473 0172 3475 0271 4316 0159 4902 014

14 4986 02216 5042 02310 5599 0138 5766 0187 6059 014

33

Level National

Year 2000ndash2002

Some gaps

34

Level Urban

Year 2010

unknown

35

Level Urban

Year 20092010

Status Ongoing

Large gaps

36

Level Sectoral

Year 2011

Large gaps

37

Abstract
1Introduction
  - References

Page 26: Sustainable Transport Evaluation · 2017-10-16 · 4 Sustainable Transport Evaluation – SUT Technical Document # 7 box 2 Key challenges in the transport sector Air pollution Transport

22

Level Urban

Year 2003ndash2006

Significant gaps

23

24

Year 2010

Large gaps

25

Egrave

Level International

Year 1999

Some gaps

26

27

Level Urban

Year 1999ndash2004

Large gaps

28

Level Urban

Year 2000ndash2004

Large gaps

29

Level International

Year Since 2000

Status Ongoing

Significant gaps

30

Level International

Year Since 2001

Some gaps

31

Level National

Year 1997

Link na

Significant gaps

32

Level UrbanSectoral

Year 2002ndash2004

Average +- 10

Large gaps

18 882 05620 1227 060

6 1347 03913 1706 03812 2628 0315 2676 033

11 3028 0224 3157 0203 3473 0172 3475 0271 4316 0159 4902 014

14 4986 02216 5042 02310 5599 0138 5766 0187 6059 014

33

Level National

Year 2000ndash2002

Some gaps

34

Level Urban

Year 2010

unknown

35

Level Urban

Year 20092010

Status Ongoing

Large gaps

36

Level Sectoral

Year 2011

Large gaps

37

Abstract
1Introduction
  - References

Page 27: Sustainable Transport Evaluation · 2017-10-16 · 4 Sustainable Transport Evaluation – SUT Technical Document # 7 box 2 Key challenges in the transport sector Air pollution Transport

23

24

Year 2010

Large gaps

25

Egrave

Level International

Year 1999

Some gaps

26

27

Level Urban

Year 1999ndash2004

Large gaps

28

Level Urban

Year 2000ndash2004

Large gaps

29

Level International

Year Since 2000

Status Ongoing

Significant gaps

30

Level International

Year Since 2001

Some gaps

31

Level National

Year 1997

Link na

Significant gaps

32

Level UrbanSectoral

Year 2002ndash2004

Average +- 10

Large gaps

18 882 05620 1227 060

6 1347 03913 1706 03812 2628 0315 2676 033

11 3028 0224 3157 0203 3473 0172 3475 0271 4316 0159 4902 014

14 4986 02216 5042 02310 5599 0138 5766 0187 6059 014

33

Level National

Year 2000ndash2002

Some gaps

34

Level Urban

Year 2010

unknown

35

Level Urban

Year 20092010

Status Ongoing

Large gaps

36

Level Sectoral

Year 2011

Large gaps

37

Abstract
1Introduction
  - References

Page 28: Sustainable Transport Evaluation · 2017-10-16 · 4 Sustainable Transport Evaluation – SUT Technical Document # 7 box 2 Key challenges in the transport sector Air pollution Transport

24

Year 2010

Large gaps

25

Egrave

Level International

Year 1999

Some gaps

26

27

Level Urban

Year 1999ndash2004

Large gaps

28

Level Urban

Year 2000ndash2004

Large gaps

29

Level International

Year Since 2000

Status Ongoing

Significant gaps

30

Level International

Year Since 2001

Some gaps

31

Level National

Year 1997

Link na

Significant gaps

32

Level UrbanSectoral

Year 2002ndash2004

Average +- 10

Large gaps

18 882 05620 1227 060

6 1347 03913 1706 03812 2628 0315 2676 033

11 3028 0224 3157 0203 3473 0172 3475 0271 4316 0159 4902 014

14 4986 02216 5042 02310 5599 0138 5766 0187 6059 014

33

Level National

Year 2000ndash2002

Some gaps

34

Level Urban

Year 2010

unknown

35

Level Urban

Year 20092010

Status Ongoing

Large gaps

36

Level Sectoral

Year 2011

Large gaps

37

Abstract
1Introduction
  - References

Page 29: Sustainable Transport Evaluation · 2017-10-16 · 4 Sustainable Transport Evaluation – SUT Technical Document # 7 box 2 Key challenges in the transport sector Air pollution Transport

25

Egrave

Level International

Year 1999

Some gaps

26

27

Level Urban

Year 1999ndash2004

Large gaps

28

Level Urban

Year 2000ndash2004

Large gaps

29

Level International

Year Since 2000

Status Ongoing

Significant gaps

30

Level International

Year Since 2001

Some gaps

31

Level National

Year 1997

Link na

Significant gaps

32

Level UrbanSectoral

Year 2002ndash2004

Average +- 10

Large gaps

18 882 05620 1227 060

6 1347 03913 1706 03812 2628 0315 2676 033

11 3028 0224 3157 0203 3473 0172 3475 0271 4316 0159 4902 014

14 4986 02216 5042 02310 5599 0138 5766 0187 6059 014

33

Level National

Year 2000ndash2002

Some gaps

34

Level Urban

Year 2010

unknown

35

Level Urban

Year 20092010

Status Ongoing

Large gaps

36

Level Sectoral

Year 2011

Large gaps

37

Abstract
1Introduction
  - References

Page 30: Sustainable Transport Evaluation · 2017-10-16 · 4 Sustainable Transport Evaluation – SUT Technical Document # 7 box 2 Key challenges in the transport sector Air pollution Transport

26

27

Level Urban

Year 1999ndash2004

Large gaps

28

Level Urban

Year 2000ndash2004

Large gaps

29

Level International

Year Since 2000

Status Ongoing

Significant gaps

30

Level International

Year Since 2001

Some gaps

31

Level National

Year 1997

Link na

Significant gaps

32

Level UrbanSectoral

Year 2002ndash2004

Average +- 10

Large gaps

18 882 05620 1227 060

6 1347 03913 1706 03812 2628 0315 2676 033

11 3028 0224 3157 0203 3473 0172 3475 0271 4316 0159 4902 014

14 4986 02216 5042 02310 5599 0138 5766 0187 6059 014

33

Level National

Year 2000ndash2002

Some gaps

34

Level Urban

Year 2010

unknown

35

Level Urban

Year 20092010

Status Ongoing

Large gaps

36

Level Sectoral

Year 2011

Large gaps

37

Abstract
1Introduction
  - References

Page 31: Sustainable Transport Evaluation · 2017-10-16 · 4 Sustainable Transport Evaluation – SUT Technical Document # 7 box 2 Key challenges in the transport sector Air pollution Transport

27

Level Urban

Year 1999ndash2004

Large gaps

28

Level Urban

Year 2000ndash2004

Large gaps

29

Level International

Year Since 2000

Status Ongoing

Significant gaps

30

Level International

Year Since 2001

Some gaps

31

Level National

Year 1997

Link na

Significant gaps

32

Level UrbanSectoral

Year 2002ndash2004

Average +- 10

Large gaps

18 882 05620 1227 060

6 1347 03913 1706 03812 2628 0315 2676 033

11 3028 0224 3157 0203 3473 0172 3475 0271 4316 0159 4902 014

14 4986 02216 5042 02310 5599 0138 5766 0187 6059 014

33

Level National

Year 2000ndash2002

Some gaps

34

Level Urban

Year 2010

unknown

35

Level Urban

Year 20092010

Status Ongoing

Large gaps

36

Level Sectoral

Year 2011

Large gaps

37

Abstract
1Introduction
  - References

Page 32: Sustainable Transport Evaluation · 2017-10-16 · 4 Sustainable Transport Evaluation – SUT Technical Document # 7 box 2 Key challenges in the transport sector Air pollution Transport

28

Level Urban

Year 2000ndash2004

Large gaps

29

Level International

Year Since 2000

Status Ongoing

Significant gaps

30

Level International

Year Since 2001

Some gaps

31

Level National

Year 1997

Link na

Significant gaps

32

Level UrbanSectoral

Year 2002ndash2004

Average +- 10

Large gaps

18 882 05620 1227 060

6 1347 03913 1706 03812 2628 0315 2676 033

11 3028 0224 3157 0203 3473 0172 3475 0271 4316 0159 4902 014

14 4986 02216 5042 02310 5599 0138 5766 0187 6059 014

33

Level National

Year 2000ndash2002

Some gaps

34

Level Urban

Year 2010

unknown

35

Level Urban

Year 20092010

Status Ongoing

Large gaps

36

Level Sectoral

Year 2011

Large gaps

37

Abstract
1Introduction
  - References

Page 33: Sustainable Transport Evaluation · 2017-10-16 · 4 Sustainable Transport Evaluation – SUT Technical Document # 7 box 2 Key challenges in the transport sector Air pollution Transport

29

Level International

Year Since 2000

Status Ongoing

Significant gaps

30

Level International

Year Since 2001

Some gaps

31

Level National

Year 1997

Link na

Significant gaps

32

Level UrbanSectoral

Year 2002ndash2004

Average +- 10

Large gaps

18 882 05620 1227 060

6 1347 03913 1706 03812 2628 0315 2676 033

11 3028 0224 3157 0203 3473 0172 3475 0271 4316 0159 4902 014

14 4986 02216 5042 02310 5599 0138 5766 0187 6059 014

33

Level National

Year 2000ndash2002

Some gaps

34

Level Urban

Year 2010

unknown

35

Level Urban

Year 20092010

Status Ongoing

Large gaps

36

Level Sectoral

Year 2011

Large gaps

37

Abstract
1Introduction
  - References

Page 34: Sustainable Transport Evaluation · 2017-10-16 · 4 Sustainable Transport Evaluation – SUT Technical Document # 7 box 2 Key challenges in the transport sector Air pollution Transport

30

Level International

Year Since 2001

Some gaps

31

Level National

Year 1997

Link na

Significant gaps

32

Level UrbanSectoral

Year 2002ndash2004

Average +- 10

Large gaps

18 882 05620 1227 060

6 1347 03913 1706 03812 2628 0315 2676 033

11 3028 0224 3157 0203 3473 0172 3475 0271 4316 0159 4902 014

14 4986 02216 5042 02310 5599 0138 5766 0187 6059 014

33

Level National

Year 2000ndash2002

Some gaps

34

Level Urban

Year 2010

unknown

35

Level Urban

Year 20092010

Status Ongoing

Large gaps

36

Level Sectoral

Year 2011

Large gaps

37

Abstract
1Introduction
  - References

Page 35: Sustainable Transport Evaluation · 2017-10-16 · 4 Sustainable Transport Evaluation – SUT Technical Document # 7 box 2 Key challenges in the transport sector Air pollution Transport

31

Level National

Year 1997

Link na

Significant gaps

32

Level UrbanSectoral

Year 2002ndash2004

Average +- 10

Large gaps

18 882 05620 1227 060

6 1347 03913 1706 03812 2628 0315 2676 033

11 3028 0224 3157 0203 3473 0172 3475 0271 4316 0159 4902 014

14 4986 02216 5042 02310 5599 0138 5766 0187 6059 014

33

Level National

Year 2000ndash2002

Some gaps

34

Level Urban

Year 2010

unknown

35

Level Urban

Year 20092010

Status Ongoing

Large gaps

36

Level Sectoral

Year 2011

Large gaps

37

Abstract
1Introduction
  - References

Page 36: Sustainable Transport Evaluation · 2017-10-16 · 4 Sustainable Transport Evaluation – SUT Technical Document # 7 box 2 Key challenges in the transport sector Air pollution Transport

32

Level UrbanSectoral

Year 2002ndash2004

Average +- 10

Large gaps

18 882 05620 1227 060

6 1347 03913 1706 03812 2628 0315 2676 033

11 3028 0224 3157 0203 3473 0172 3475 0271 4316 0159 4902 014

14 4986 02216 5042 02310 5599 0138 5766 0187 6059 014

33

Level National

Year 2000ndash2002

Some gaps

34

Level Urban

Year 2010

unknown

35

Level Urban

Year 20092010

Status Ongoing

Large gaps

36

Level Sectoral

Year 2011

Large gaps

37

Abstract
1Introduction
  - References

Page 37: Sustainable Transport Evaluation · 2017-10-16 · 4 Sustainable Transport Evaluation – SUT Technical Document # 7 box 2 Key challenges in the transport sector Air pollution Transport

33

Level National

Year 2000ndash2002

Some gaps

34

Level Urban

Year 2010

unknown

35

Level Urban

Year 20092010

Status Ongoing

Large gaps

36

Level Sectoral

Year 2011

Large gaps

37

Abstract
1Introduction
  - References

Page 38: Sustainable Transport Evaluation · 2017-10-16 · 4 Sustainable Transport Evaluation – SUT Technical Document # 7 box 2 Key challenges in the transport sector Air pollution Transport

34

Level Urban

Year 2010

unknown

35

Level Urban

Year 20092010

Status Ongoing

Large gaps

36

Level Sectoral

Year 2011

Large gaps

37

Abstract
1Introduction
  - References

Page 39: Sustainable Transport Evaluation · 2017-10-16 · 4 Sustainable Transport Evaluation – SUT Technical Document # 7 box 2 Key challenges in the transport sector Air pollution Transport

35

Level Urban

Year 20092010

Status Ongoing

Large gaps

36

Level Sectoral

Year 2011

Large gaps

37

Abstract
1Introduction
  - References

Page 40: Sustainable Transport Evaluation · 2017-10-16 · 4 Sustainable Transport Evaluation – SUT Technical Document # 7 box 2 Key challenges in the transport sector Air pollution Transport

36

Level Sectoral

Year 2011

Large gaps

37

Abstract
1Introduction
  - References

Page 41: Sustainable Transport Evaluation · 2017-10-16 · 4 Sustainable Transport Evaluation – SUT Technical Document # 7 box 2 Key challenges in the transport sector Air pollution Transport

37

Abstract
1Introduction
  - References

Page 42: Sustainable Transport Evaluation · 2017-10-16 · 4 Sustainable Transport Evaluation – SUT Technical Document # 7 box 2 Key challenges in the transport sector Air pollution Transport

Abstract
1Introduction
  - References

Date post:	01-Aug-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

Sustainable Transport Evaluation · 2017-10-16 · 4 Sustainable Transport Evaluation – SUT...

Documents